Delhi District Court
Amol K Bhalerao And Ors vs All India Agricultural Students ... on 12 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANUBHAV JAIN, LD. DISTRICT
JUDGE-05, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLND010010182025
MCA DJ/1/2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao, S/o Sh. Kamlakar,
Office at: Former Office Bearer, AIASA,
NASC Complex, New Delhi-110012
2. Dr. Ashish Khandelwal,
Flat No. 594, Type-III, Krishi Kunj,
Inder Puri, New Delhi-110012
3. Mr. Ramvilas Paswan V,
Room no. 12, Vasant Hostel
IARI, Pusa, New Delhi-110012
4. Ms. Vathsala Phalguni,
Girls Hostel, IARI,
Pusa, New Delhi-110012
5. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Yadav,
Vasant Hostel, IARI
Pusa, New Delhi-110012
....Appellants
MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 1 of 21
Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA
Versus
All India Agricultural Students Association
(AIASA) through its General Secretary
Registered Office at A/G-4,
NASC Complex, Pusa, New Delhi-110012
....Respondent
Date of Institution : 18.02.2025
Arguments heard on : 04.11.2025
Date of Decision : 12.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants against the order dated 25.01.2025 passed by Ld. ASCJ, New Delhi District, whereby the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC so filed by the plaintiff/respondent was allowed and appellants/defendant were restrained from acting or working as the office bearers of the Governing body of the plaintiff association. For the sake of convenience, in the present order, parties shall be referred as per their original nomenclature before the Ld. Trial Court.
FACTS OF CASE
2. In brief the facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff in its plaint are that plaintiff association is registered as society under Society Registration Act, 1860 on 01.12.2011. It is stated the said MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 2 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA association was found in order to add strength of unity among agriculture professional.
Further, defendant no. 1 is stated to be former office bearer of the plaintiff association (year 2011) while defendant no. 2 to 5 were also office bearer of governing body of plaintiff association for the current year.
2.1 With respect to defendant no. 1, namely, Sh. Amol K. Bhalerao, it is stated that he used to be office bearer of the plaintiff association in the year 2011. It is further stated that defendant no. 1 hacked the Facebook page and Facebook group of plaintiff association on 31.10.2024 and further removed Chief Coordinator, Chief Policy Advisor, Chief PRO and other authorized office bearer from social media site. Further defendant no. 1 himself became the admin and posted election notification 2025 dated 01.11.2024 and further named himself as returning officer in the same by misusing the letter head of plaintiff association. Defendant no. 1 further seeks application for nomination in conducting election for governing body of plaintiff association for the year 2025.
It is further stated that on 03.11.2024, the governing body of plaintiff association has decided to take action against defendant no. 1 for hacking social sites of plaintiff association and issuance of illegal notification dated 01.11.2024.
2.2 With respect to defendant no. 2 i.e. Dr. Ashish Khandelwal, defendant no. 3 Mr. Ramvilas Paswan V, defendant no. 4 Ms. Vathsala and defendant no. 5 Mr. Brijesh Kumar Yadav, it is alleged that all the said defendants were involved in mismanagement and criminal misappropriation of plaintiff's fund and have misappropriated an amount of Rs. 28 lakhs without the MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 3 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA information of approval of the Executive Committee. It is further stated that plaintiff association also constituted an Inquiry Committee against defendant nos. 2 to 5 and issued a chargesheet upon them for financial misappropriation.
2.3 It is further stated that the plaintiff association through its Chief Coordinator files complaint against defendant nos. 2 to 5 on 28.10.2024, 29.10.2024, 30.10.2024 and 11.11.2024 before Cyber Cell, since the said defendants were also involved in hacking the digital platform, social site and deactivating the official email of the plaintiff association.
2.4 It is further stated that defendant nos. 2 to 5 were suspended on 03.10.2024 and 07.10.2024 by Governing body and other cabinet members by passing a resolution on 07.10.2024 by electronic voting. Further, the said resolution dated 07.10.2024 was also confirmed by governing body in its meeting dated 20.10.2024. That thereafter, on 05.11.2024, the governing body of the plaintiff terminated membership of defendant nos. 2 to 5 from the association. Further, General Secretary of the plaintiff association vide letter dated 07.11.2024 informed the Registrar of the Societies about termination of defendant nos. 2 to 5.
2.5 It is further stated that the defendants have continued to hold themselves as officials of plaintiff association, despite their membership have been terminated by plaintiff on 05.11.2023, however defendants in abuse of their official position have stolen assets and concealed valuable documents of plaintiff association.
It is further alleged that the association through its Chief Coordinator has filed one complaint for return of documents and assets of plaintiff, however, despite the same defendants decline MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 4 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA to surrender all official assets and valuable documents of the plaintiff association.
2.6 By way of present suit, plaintiff has sought declaration that defendants have no legal authority to continue as office bearer of Governing Body of plaintiff or to issue any direction or communication after their termination from plaintiff association. Plaintiff has also sought that election notification dated 01.11.2024 be declared and null and void. Plaintiff by way of present suit have also permanent injunction that defendant be restrained from continuing as officer bearer of plaintiff association and be restrained from conducting election.
Plaintiffs have further sought mandatory injunction that defendants be directed to return all the assets and valuable documents of the plaintiff association.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS
3. In reply thereof, a joint Written Statement was filed by the defendants wherein besides denying all the allegation so leveled by the plaintiff in its plaint, it is averred that the suspension and the termination of the defendants was carried out in complete violation of the by laws of AIASA. It is stated that the defendants were never given any show cause notice nor any opportunity was provided to present their case before governing body.
3.1 It is further stated that the defendant no. 1 is an office bearer and has authority to issue election notification. It is further stated that the returning officer was appointed by defendant no. 3 who was elected president for the year 2024. It is further stated MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 5 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA that defendant no. 1 was member of the association since its very inception and was never suspended.
3.2 It is further stated that alleged suspension and termination of defendant nos. 2 to 5 was arbitrary, illegal and not in accordance with bylaws of plaintiff, since plaintiff has failed to convene a meeting with required quorum or obtain 2/3 majority for such action.
3.3 Defendants further denied the allegation of criminal misappropriation of funds or any financial irregularity. Defendants further prayed for dismissal of suit filed by plaintiff.
REPLICATION
4. In reply to the Written Statement, replication was filed by the plaintiff, wherein all the averments so made by the defendants in their Written Statement was denied and plaintiff further reiterated averments so made by it in its plaint.
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 & 2/ IMPUGNED ORDER
5. That along with present case, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed by the plaintiff and same was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court on 25.01.2025. The Ld. Trial Court while observing that the allegations against the defendants herein qua financial irregularity, prima-facie appears to be correct, restrained the defendants from acting or working as the office bearers of the Governing Body in the name of AIASA till the disposal of the suit. Ld. Trial Court further stayed the MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 6 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA operation of notification dated 13.12.2024 issued by Dr Ashwini Singh declaring the new Governing Body and further restrained the defendants from issuing any communication, order, notice, circular etc. till the disposal of the suit.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
6. The order dated 25.01.2025 was assailed by the defendants/appellants by way of present appeal on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to apprise that appellants nos. 2 to 5 were member of executive committee and that there is no document placed on record to show that they were removed from their respective posts by duly authorized person by following due process of law. It is further alleged that the entire procedure so adopted by the plaintiff in alleged removal of the appellants was illegal and by non following the by-laws of the association.
REPLY TO APPEAL
7. Reply of the appeal was filed by the plaintiff/respondent wherein they denied the averment made by the appellant in their appeal and prayed for dismissal of the same.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused case file carefully.
SCOPE OF APPELLATE COURT IN APPEAL & LAW ON GRANT OF INTERIM INJUNCTION
9. Before proceeding further with the present application in hand on merits, this court deems it appropriate to discuss in here law with regards to scope of appellate court under Order XLIII MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 7 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA CPC. For the same, I may gainfully refer to the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others Civil Appeal No. 13001 of 2024, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:
APPELLATE JURISDICTION UNDER ORDER 43 OF THE CPC
20. Order 43 of the CPC specifies the orders against which an appeal lies. SubRule (r) of Rule 1 of the said order provides that an appeal would lie against an order made under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 and 10 of Order 39 of the CPC respectively.
21.The law in relation to the scope of an appeal against grant or non-grant of interim injunction was laid down by this Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. reported in 1990 Supp SCC 727. Antox brought an action of passing off against Wander with respect to the mark Cal-De-Ce. The trial court declined Antox's plea for an interim injunction, however, on appeal the High Court reversed the findings of the trial judge. This Court, upon due consideration of the matter, took notice of two egregious errors said to have been committed by the High Court:
a. First, as regards the scope and nature of the appeals before it and the limitations on the powers of the appellate court to substitute its own discretion in an appeal preferred against a discretionary order; and b. Secondly, the weakness in ratiocination as to the quality of Antox's alleged user of the trademark on which the passing off action is founded.
22.With regards to (a), this Court held thus:
"In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of the first instance and substitute its own discretion, except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 8 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA perversely, or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions ... the appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below ... If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion."
23.This Court, while arriving at the above findings, relied on its earlier judgment in Printers (Mysore) v Pothan Joseph reported in (1960) SCC Online SC 62 where it was held thus:
"[...] as has been observed by Viscount Simon LC in Charles Osenton & Co v Johnston - the law as to reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his/her discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well-settled principles in an individual case."
24.It is pertinent to note that in Printers (supra) this Court had held that ignoring relevant facts is also a ground for interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial court. Furthermore, Viscount Simon LC in Charles Osenton & Co v Johnston reported in 1942 A.C. 130, after stating the above, went on to quote Lord Wright's decision in Evans v. Bartlam reported in 1937 A.C. 473:
"It is clear that the court of appeal should not interfere with the discretion of a judge acting within his jurisdiction unless the court is clearly satisfied that he was wrong. But the court is not entitled simply to say that if the judge had jurisdiction and had all the facts before him, the court of appeal cannot review his order unless he is shown to have applied a wrong principle. The court must, if necessary, examine a new the relevant facts and circumstances in order to exercise a discretion by way of review which may reverse or vary the order."MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 9 of 21
Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA
25.In Evans (supra) case, Lord Wright made it clear that while adjudicating upon the discretion exercised by the trial court, the appellate court is obliged to consider the case put forward by the appellant in favour of its argument that the trial court exercised its discretion arbitrarily or incorrectly in the circumstances.
26.What flows from a plain reading of the decisions in Evans (supra) and Charles Osenton (supra) is that an appellate court, even while deciding an appeal against a discretionary order granting an interim injunction, has to: a. Examine whether the discretion has been properly exercised, i.e. examine whether the discretion exercised is not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the principles of law; and b. In addition to the above, an appellate court may in a given case have to adjudicate on facts even in such discretionary orders.
27.The principles of law explained by this Court in Wander's (supra) have been reiterated in a number of subsequent decisions of this Court. However, over a period of time the test laid down by this Court as regards the scope of interference has been made more stringent. The emphasis is now more on perversity rather than a mere error of fact or law in the order granting injunction pending the final adjudication of the suit.
28. In Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. reported in (2016) 2 SCC 672 this Court held that the Appellate Court should not flimsily, whimsically or lightly interfere in the exercise of discretion by a subordinate court unless such exercise is palpably perverse. Perversity can pertain to the understanding of law or the appreciation of pleadings or evidence. In other words, the Court took the view that to interfere against an order granting or declining to grant a temporary injunction, perversity has to be demonstrated in the finding of the trial court.
29.In Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan reported in (2013) 9 SCC 221 this Court emphasised on the principles laid down in Wander MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 10 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA (supra) and observed that while the view taken by the appellate court may be an equally possible view, the mere possibility of taking such a view must not form the basis for setting aside the decision arrived at by the trial court in exercise of its discretion under Order 39 of the CPC. The basis for substituting the view of the trial court should be malafides, capriciousness, arbitrariness or perversity in the order of the trial court. The relevant observations are extracted below:
"20. In a situation where the learned trial court on a consideration of the respective cases of the parties and the documents laid before it was of the view that the entitlement of the plaintiffs to an order of interim mandatory injunction was in serious doubt, the Appellate Court could not have interfered with the exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Judge unless such exercise was found to be palpably incorrect or untenable. The reasons that weighed with the learned Trial Judge, as already noticed, according to us, do not indicate that the view taken is not a possible view. The Appellate Court, therefore, should not have substituted its views in the matter merely on the ground that in its opinion the facts of the case call for a different conclusion. Such an exercise is not the correct parameter for exercise of jurisdiction while hearing an appeal against a discretionary order. While we must not be understood to have said that the Appellate Court was wrong in its conclusions what is sought to be emphasized is that as long as the view of the trial court was a possible view the Appellate Court should not have interfered with the same following the virtually settled principles of law in this regard as laid down by this Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd." (Emphasis supplied)
30.This Court in Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. reported in (2023) 1 SCC 634 observed that the hierarchy of the trial court and the appellate court exists so that the trial court exercises its discretion upon the settled principles of law. An appellate court, after the findings of the trial court are recorded, has an advantage of appreciating the view taken by the trial judge and examining the MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 11 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA correctness or otherwise thereof within the limited area available. It further observed that if the appellate court itself decides the matters required to be decided by the trial court, there would be no necessity to have the hierarchy of courts.
31.This Court in Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. reported in (2019) 3 SCC 381, observed that the appellate court should not usurp the jurisdiction of the Single Judge to decide as to whether the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are made out in the case or not. 32.The appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the well settled principles governing the scope of jurisdiction of appellate court under Order 43 of the CPC which have been reiterated in various other decisions of this Court. The appellate court should not assume unlimited jurisdiction and should guide its powers within the contours laid down in the Wander (supra) case.
10. As per the plaintiff's case, despite terminating the defendants from the membership of plaintiff association, defendants notify the election and further declare the results of election on 13.12.2024. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that the defendants, once terminated from the membership of the plaintiff association, they were barred from issuing any notification qua election or continue as a member of executive body. Further, as per the plaintiff, they have already send list of newly appointed members to the registrar of Society.
11. On the other hand, the present suit of the plaintiff is contested by the defendants on the ground that the procedure so adopted by the plaintiffs with regard to suspension or termination of the defendants is completely illegal and in violation of by-
MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 12 of 21Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA laws of the association. It is the case of defendants, that since they were never removed or terminated from their posts legally, they are within their power to continue as member of Executive Body and declare elections thereof.
12. As per the case of the plaintiff, following defendants were suspended and thereafter terminated from the membership of plaintiff association:
Name Post Suspension Date of Reason of
Resolution Termination suspension
dated
Dr. Ashish National 03.10.2024 05.11.2024 Financial
Khandelwal Secretary Embezzlement
(GC)
Mr. Ramvilas National 07.10.2024 05.11.2024 Financial
Paswan V President Embezzlement
Ms. Vathsala National 07.10.2024 05.11.2024 Financial
Treasurer Embezzlement
Mr. Brijesh Sr. Vice 07.10.2024 05.11.2024 Financial
Kumar Yadav President Embezzlement
13. Since, the sole defense of the defendant lies upon the procedure adopted by plaintiff association in suspending and terminating the defendants herein, this court deems it appropriate to discuss in here relevant rules, regulations and bye laws of the plaintiff association with regards to the same.
MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 13 of 21Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA RELEVANT RULES, REGULATIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE AIASA ASSOCIATION, REGARDING SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION OF MEMBERS
14. As per the memorandum of association of plaintiff association, so placed on record, it can be made out that:
a) As per Rule 2 and 3 there shall be only one type of membership i.e. member and any person to fulfill the eligibility condition for membership are to be enrolled on payment of fees prescribed by the association.
b) As per the Rule 8 the General body shall consist of all the members of the association and the final authority of the association vest in it. Further the general body has right to elect executive committee/governing body members and further to remove office bearers/member of executive committee of the association.
c) As per Rule 8 (iv) for removal of office bearers of executive members of the association shall require 2/3 majority of the members present for voting and quorum of such meeting shall 1/3 of total members on roll.
d) That as per Rule 5 and 6, any member of the association can be expelled by executive committee after giving in reasons for expulsion and further providing an opportunity to explain the MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 14 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA reason. The said expelled member has right to appeal before the general body.
15. Further, clause 8 of Procedure/Protocol of AIASA, provides as follows:
Any member of the society if found engaged in any financial embezzlement, damage the property or caused any injury to the society or are in the arrears of a subscription, he/she can be declared stranger or prosecution can be initiated against him (Section 7 of SR.Act. 1860). The association can have its own disciplinary committee for maintaining strict discipline in the Association. The National General Secretary is authorized to take any action in consultation with Executive Committee Core committee including suspension or removal of member in the interest of the association or to take any administrative or legal action against the person if found engaged in (causing injury/damage to the association as per general procedures/rules/bye-laws of the the Association prescribed under S. R. Act.
16. The plaintiff herein alleged that defendants herein were involved in Financial Embezzlement and sending Unauthorised E-mail to 340 people. With regards to financial embezzlement, it is alleged that:
a) Defendants herein without circulation of quotations, have taken decision to incurred expenditure of 28 lakhs against the receipt of funds of Rs. 20.5 Lakhs.
b) That all the purchase of printing and other items were done without rate quotation or recommendation of the Chief Coordinator/Purchase Committee.MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 15 of 21
Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA
c) That bill of Rs.97,000/- for purchase of pen drive was passed without circulation.
d) That Souvenir, Conference ID cards and certificates were printed with the cost of Rs. 2 lakhs, despite that sanction amount for the same was Rs. 1 lakh only.
e) That bills of cost of printing were forged, fabricated, prepared from back date for an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs.
f) That certain amount was transferred from the account of plaintiff association to the personal account of defendant, which can be seen from the statement of accounts of plaintiff association.
17. During course of arguments strong reliance was placed upon Approval Note dated 13.08.2024 whereby Quotation and rate from Firm Namely Kalito India Pvt. Ltd. Were approved by the defendants herein.
18. It is argued that Ashish Khandelwal was never a member of Purchase Committee, despite the same he participated in the same and also proceeded further with other members to approve the quotation from Kalito India. It is further argued that Kalito India, upon verification was found to be engaged in business of Sanitry Pads, Baby Dipers, home and personal care items, and not that of printing job, as alleged by the defendants.
19. With regards to allegation as to hacking of email id of the plaintiff association, it is alleged against the defendants MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 16 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA that defendants herein have issued unauthorised e-mail to more than 340 persons on 28.10.2024, many of which were not even the members of the association. It is further alleged that defendants herein circulated illegal documents by misusing letter head of the association.
20. As per the plaintiff they have adopted due procedure prior to take action against the defendants. It is argued that proper show cause notice was issued prior to suspension (date of suspension 03.10.2024 and 07.10.2024), resolution of suspension was confirmed by Governing Body (dated 20.10.2024), after appointment of election observer (07.10.2024), thereafter all the defendants were charge sheeted (on 29,10.2024) and finally since they failed to file reply to the same, they were terminated and same was conformed/approved by Governing Body.
21. On the other hand, the entire procedure so adopted by the plaintiff in terminating the defendants is questioned for, on following grounds:
a) That show cause notice was issued merely upon Ashish Khandelwal prior to his suspension and to no other defendant;
b) That no independent inquiry committee was set up to look into the allegations against the defendants;
c) That procedure suspending the defendants was not as per law, since (i) as per E-mail dated 07.10.2024 election observer was appointed at 4:09 PM while election was to conclude at 4:00 PM (ii) As per Email, if any person does MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 17 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA not vote by 4:00PM, his vote shall be counted as positive vote (while as by By-Laws removal of office bearer requires 2/3 majority of members present at the time of voting)
d) That no Charge sheet was issued upon any of the defendant other than Ashish Khandelwal, prior to their termination. Also, Charge sheet against Ashish Khandelwal is not on the letter head, does not contain enquiry report and is not signed by members of enquiry committee.
e) All the defendants were terminated on the ground of Hacking of official E-mail ID and not of financial embezzlement.
22. Upon the query so raised by this court upon counsel for appellant with regards to the bills of Kalito India (which are alleged to be forged and fabricated), so provided by defendant to plaintiff association as well as statement of accounts of plaintiff association, as per which certain amount was transferred in the personal account of one of the defendant, it is stated by Ld counsel for appellant that since no specific show cause was issued upon the defendants in this regard, no reply to the same was furnished.
23. After considering the arguments from both the sides, even if, considering the material available on record, it can be said that even if there are merits in the claim so led by the appellant/ defendants herein, defendants herein have never availed there available remedy by challenging the said suspension/termination before the General Body as provided under Rule 9 (iv) of the said rules. Further, appellants herein MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 18 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA have never approached court at that time, by way of suit challenging the said orders passed by plaintiff/ respondent terminating them, rather they proceed further in declaring elections for the next year.
24. It is further pertinent to state in here that during the course of arguments it was apprised that executive body for the year 2025 have already been elected and that also elections for the year 2026 are declared. As such, in such circumstances, when the Executive body of the plaintiff association have already completed its tenure for the year in question, any interference with regard to relief so granted by Ld. Trial Court qua restraining the defendants for working as office bearer of the Governing Body in the name of plaintiff Association and staying of operation of Notification number No. 4-A/AIASA/2024/2 granted to plaintiff/respondent by ld. Trial Court vide order dated 25.01.2025, shall be futile.
25. Also, with regards to direction by Ld. Trial Court that defendants/appellants were restrained from making any communication etc. to the member of association or General Public in the name of association, till the termination of suit, it is pertinent to note in here that admittedly appellants/defendants are no more members of executive Body of the Plaintiff Association.
26. With regards to allegations of Financial Embezzlement and hacking of website, it is for the plaintiff to prove the same during the course of trial and any observation upon the same shall affect the merits of the case.
MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 19 of 21Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA
27. The only perversity so claimed by the appellant in the impugned order is that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the termination of appellants was not as per applicable rules and without following rules of Natural Justice.
As already discussed, appellants has never themselves challenged the said termination on the said grounds either before the concerned body or Court. Further, all the defenses so raised by the defendant/appellant in the present appeal are matter of final adjudication after leading of evidence and cannot be dealt with on merits at this stage.
28. Considering the facts discussed above as well as order dated 25.01.2025, this court finds no perversity in impugned order. Ld. Trial Court has passed the order after considering settled proposition of law of Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss. Further, Ld. Trial Court has also dealt with relevant rules, law and regulations of the plaintiff association while disposing off the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the Plaintiff. In view of the same, this court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 25.01.2025 passed by Ld. Trial Court and present appeal stands dismissed.
29. Before parting with the present order in hand, this court deems it appropriate to reproduce in here few of the grounds so laid down by the appellant in the present appeal:
B. Because the impugned order dated 25/01/2025 has been passed in a biased manner on the basis of pre-occupation of mind against the Appellant.
C. Because the impugned order dated 25/01/2025 has been passed in a perverse MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 20 of 21 Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA manner totally inconsistent to the facts and averments, without applying rational and justified mind.
30. The Court deprecates the tendency of appellants to level unfounded allegations of bias and prejudice against the trial court simply on account of an adverse decision. Such imputations, when not supported by any credible or cogent material, undermine the dignity and integrity of the judicial process. It is imperative to remember that mere dissatisfaction with a judgment or order does not warrant casting aspersions on the impartiality of the presiding judicial officer. The Court sternly cautions the appellants against such abuse of the appellate process and warns that continued frivolous allegations may invite appropriate costs or other consequence.
31. TCR be send back to court concerned, along with copy of order. Appeal File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV JAIN
Pronounced in the open JAIN Date: 2025.11.13
Court on 12th of November, 2025 16:18:30 +0530
(Anubhav Jain)
District Judge -05, NDD,
Patiala House Court/New Delhi
MCA DJ 1/25 Page No. 21 of 21
Dr. Amol K. Bhalerao Vs AIASA