Calcutta High Court
Of Saturday Club Ltd. & Ors vs Saturday Club Limited & Others on 6 May, 2011
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
GA No. 1349 of 2011 CS No. 96 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Mr. Ravi Saberwal, (President) of Saturday Club Ltd. & Ors.
Versus Saturday Club Limited & Others Before:
The Hon'ble Justice Sanjib Banerjee Date: 6th May 2011 Appearance:
Mr. Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr. Advocate Mr. A. Mitra, Advocate Mr. R. Banerjee, Advocate Mr. S. Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. A. Mallik, Advocate Mr. S. Dey, Advocate appear for the plaintiffs Mr. P. C. Sen, Sr. Advocate Mr. Tilok Basu, Sr. Advocate Mr. R. R. Sen, Advocate appear for the defendant-club Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Advocate Mr. Sayantan Bose, Advocate appear for the defendant nos.2 & 20 The matter pertains to the suspension of privileges of the three plaintiffs as members of the first defendant-club. The first plaintiff is the president of the club. The two other plaintiffs are members of the general committee of the club.
The claim in the suit is that in taking the decision against the plaintiffs, the club has not complied with its articles of association, that 2 the principles of natural justice have been violated and that the entire exercise is tainted by malafides and bias.
The plaintiffs say that even though Courts are hesitant in interfering in matters pertaining to clubs, when there is a breach of the articles of the club and when punishment is meted out without following the principles of natural justice, Courts have stepped in to intervene. Judgments reported at AIR 1963 SC 1144 and AIR 1995 Cal 140 have been relied upon for such purpose.
The plaintiffs refer to Article 62 of the articles of association of the club that provides for measures being taken against a member of the club subject to the provisions of Article 63(1) thereof. Article 62, in its opening part, has two limbs. Under the first limb of the initial part of the Article 62, the general committee of the club is authorised to take cognizance of any untoward act or conduct of any member that tends to bring the club to disrepute and refer the conduct of such member to a membership committee. The other limb of the initial part obliges the general committee to refer a complaint to the membership committee upon receiving a requisition in such regard from at least twenty members of the club.
The second part of the Article 62 refers to the various acts of punishment that can be meted out to an errant member. There is the extreme punishment of expulsion, which is subject to the right of the member expelled to cause the convening of an extra-ordinary general 3 meeting of the club under Article 63(1) of the articles of association. The two other measures which are provided for in Article 62 are for adequate reparation and apology being tendered by the errant member; and, prohibiting the member from using the club for a period of three months.
The plaintiffs say that though a requisition was apparently received by the club from 22 members, no copy of the requisition notice was issued to the plaintiffs till about two hours prior to the meeting of the membership committee on April 28, 2011. The plaintiffs say that the membership committee of the club comprises members of the general committee and members of the ballotting committee. The plaintiffs complain that there was no independent cognizance taken of the alleged misdeeds of the plaintiffs by the general committee; at least no meeting in such regard had been convened or held.
The plaintiffs chose not to attend the membership committee meeting of April 28, 2011 and say that immediately after the meeting was concluded, a notice was put up on the notice board of the club announcing the measures taken against the three plaintiffs, though the club's letters in such regard to the three individual plaintiffs were served on them only on the following day. The plaintiffs refer to the decision of the membership committee and claim that it travelled beyond the measures that could have been adopted under Article 62 of the articles of association of the club. In particular, the plaintiffs object to the decision of the membership 4 committee that the plaintiffs' "membership rights and privileges will remain prohibited." The plaintiffs say that Article 62 does not provide for this measure and even if the plaintiffs are not entitled to use the club or its facilities, the membership rights and privileges cannot be suspended.
The club and its vice-president say that the entire plea of the plaintiffs is without any basis. According to the club and its vice-president, the allegations against these three plaintiffs had been levelled several months back and it would be evident from the minutes of the meetings relied upon by the plaintiffs that the matters had been discussed threadbare by the general committee and that the plaintiffs had apparently admitted that certain contracts had been entered into by them on behalf of the club without the general committee members of the club being aware thereof.
What is evident from the minutes of the meetings relied upon by the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs attended such meetings and put forth their version of things. The real grievance of the plaintiffs' is, thus, reduced to whether the notice issued by the club or its general committee for a membership committee meeting to be convened was in order and as to whether the plaintiffs got adequate opportunity to deal with the grievance of the requisitionists prior to the meeting of the membership committee.
There appears to be some doubt as to whether the plaintiffs were aware that the general committee itself had taken cognizance of the 5 conduct of the plaintiffs. Such doubt arises since the minutes relating to the general committee meeting of April 4, 2011 were apparently not made available to the plaintiffs, despite the three plaintiffs having participated thereat. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of April 4, 2011 has been presented in Court and a further copy thereof made available to the plaintiffs. It appears from the recording of the minutes as evident from such copy, that the general committee, through the seven members thereof who had actively participated at such meeting (the three plaintiffs had either disagreed with other committee members or had abstained from voting on a number of issues), had taken a decision to take cognizance of the plaintiffs' conduct within the meaning of Article 62 of the articles of association of the club.
What is also evident is that despite the plaintiffs' immediate grievance that the principles of natural justice were violated and that the plaintiffs did not have adequate opportunity to deal with the charges before the membership committee, the substance of the charges against the plaintiffs is reflected in the minutes of the meetings of the general committee which are appended to the petition. The plaintiffs' version and the questioning thereof by the other members of the general committee are also on record.6
It does not appear, prima facie, that there was any serious violation of the principles of natural justice that would warrant the interference of the Court in a matter pertaining to a social club.
The other aspect that the plaintiffs complain of is regarding the punishment which is apparently in excess of the authority of the membership committee under Article 62 of the articles of association. Since it is, prima facie, found that the membership committee was entitled to take up the matter and decide thereon and since the grievance as to extent of punishment is a matter of degrees, such aspect can await affidavits being received from the defendants.
There will be no order at the moment. Affidavit-in-opposition be filed within May 10, 2011; reply thereto, if any, before the matter is taken up on May 11, 2011 as an "Adjourned Motion".
The club has been required to produce the minutes book wherein the minutes of the general committee meetings held on April 4, 2011 and April 28, 2011 have been recorded. The plaintiffs have been permitted to take inspection thereof in Court.
Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) R. Bose AR(C.R.)