Bangalore District Court
Ms. Shabnam Khan vs Mr. K.C. Venkatesh on 18 September, 2021
1
O.S.No. 26928/2011
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
(CCH-75)
Dated this 18th Day of September 2021
PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G. (B.A. LL.B.,)
LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 26928/2011
PLAINTIFF: Ms. Shabnam Khan,
Aged about 42 years
D/o. F.M. Khan,
Formerly R/at: No.2
Cleveland Road,
Frazer Town,
Bengaluru - 560005.
And presently residing
At #2, Keystone Manor,
No.2, Paezold Road,
Richards Town,
Bangalore-560 005.
REP BY: Sri. I.S.Devaiah, Bhargavi Devi K, Varun B.Pai,
- ADVOCATES
V/s
DEFENDANTS: 1 Mr. K.C. Venkatesh,
Adult, S/o K.C. Reddy,
President,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
2
O.S.No. 26928/2011
Bangalore - 560025.
2 Mr. Amarnath Kamath,
Adult, S/o Late Mr. Kamath,
Vice President,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
3 Mr. V. Kumar Subramaniam,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff Immediate Past President,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
4 Mr. Ajay Toshnival,
Adult, S/o Mr. Toshnival,
General Committee Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
5 Mr. M.K. Chidambarnath,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
3
O.S.No. 26928/2011
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
6 Mr. Girish Punja,
Adult,
S/o B.T.R. Punja,
General Committee Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
7 Mr. P.V.Jayashankar,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
8 Mr. K. A. Jagadish,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
9 Mr. Kenneth Pinto,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
4
O.S.No. 26928/2011
Member,
M/s. Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
10 Mrs. Poornima Jayaraj,
Adult, W/o K. Jayaraj
General Committee Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
11 Air Marshal V.R. Iyer,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
12 Major Gen. A.K. Pradhan,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
13 Brigadier P.S.Ravindranath,
5
O.S.No. 26928/2011
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2009-2010,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
14 Mr. Marattukalam M.K.,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2011-2012,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
15 Mr. Feroz Sattar Sait,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2011-2012,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
16 Mr. H.C.Thimmaiah,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2011-2012,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
6
O.S.No. 26928/2011
Bangalore - 560025.
17 Dr. Thomas A. Chandy,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2011-2012,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
18 Mr. R. Ramakrishnan,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2011-2012,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
19 Mr. T. Kengal Murthy,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2011-2011,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
20 Mr. Machender Pishe,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
7
O.S.No. 26928/2011
Functional Year 2011-2011,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
21 Air Marshal Dhiraj Kukreja,
Adult, Father's name not known to
plaintiff, General Committee
Member,
M/s.Bangalore Club,
Functional Year 2011-2011,
No.10/1, Field Marshal K. M.
Cariappa Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
Defendants 1 to 21 representing the "Bangalore Club" being
an Association of Persons and an unregistered and
unincorporated body of persons functioning as a social club,
having its precincts at No.10/1, Field Marshal K.M.Cariappa
Road, Bangalore-560 025
22 M/s Bangalore Club,
An Unregistered body of persons
Having its office at No.10/1, Field
Marshal K.M.Cariappa Road,
Bangalore-560 025
Rep By Sri. Aditya Sondhi, Nidhishree,
B.V.Guruprasanna, Maneesha Kongovi, Sanjit, R.
Rajayer, Karan Joseph
Date of Institution of the suit 08/11/2011
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pro-note, suit for
DECLARATION &
declaration and possession, suit for
INJUNCTION
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording of the
02/06/2014
Evidence.
8
O.S.No. 26928/2011
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 18/09/2021
Year/s Month/ Day/s
Total duration
s
09 10 10
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for the relief of declaration declaring that the communication dated:
6.12.2009 regarding rejection of the proposal of Mr. A. Chandrashekar for according the permanent membership to the plaintiff in the Bangalore Club and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the above said proposal for consideration on merits in accordance with the rules of the Club.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. Plaintiff is an Indian National and permanent resident of Bengaluru City. She hails from a respectable family. Her father is a former member of Parliament of India and a Coffee planter. Defendant No.22 the Bangalore club is a social club. It is neither registered or incorporated 9 O.S.No. 26928/2011 in accordance with law. Therefore,it is not a juridical person. Hence it cannot sue or to be sued. The two organs of the Bangalore-Club are general body of permanent members and general committee. The General Committee manages administration and controls the entire affairs of the club. The General Committee carries on the functions of the Club in accordance with rules and byelaws of the club which were accepted by the general body ofpermanent members. Plaintiff contends that as a spouse of permanent member of Bangalore-Club she was enjoying the privilege and facilities of the club. Her marriage with the permanent member was dissolved. As per Rule 4 of the Rules of Bangalore-Club, she is having eligibility to become a permanent member of the club. Therefore, she submitted an application for grant of permanent membership. Her application was proposed by Mr. A. Chandrashekar and seconded by other two permanent members of the club namely Mr. Raghavendra Dev and Mr. P.K.Krishnan.
Plaintiff contends that along with application, she paid 10 O.S.No. 26928/2011 required membership fee. Since her application was in accordance with rules, it was registered in the registry of Bangalore-Club on 7.7.1998 and accorded waiting list No.2061. She contends that rule-7 of the Bye-laws of the Bangalore-Club deals regarding election of permanent members of the club. She contends that after submitting the application, she waited patiently till her application matured to take up for consideration by the General committee of the club. As per communication of Bangalore- Club dated: 30.08.1999, 26.3.2001, and 31.08.2009 she paid enhanced membership fee of Rs.13,000, Rs.15,000 and 69,270/- respectively. Thus, as per communications made by Bangalore-Club, she paid in total a sum of Rs.99,270/- to get permanent membership of the club. She contends that on 31.08.2009 she received a letter issued by Bangalore-Club directing her to submit latest information form. Accordingly, she submitted the said information form along with 2 recent pass-port size photos and other required documents. Thus, she complied all the 11 O.S.No. 26928/2011 required rules and the byelaws of the Club to get permanent membership of the club. Inspite of it on 6.12.2009, her proposer Mr. Chandrashekar received communication from Bangalore-Club stating that having regard to the discrepancy about her education qualification in the application form and latest information form, his proposal for grant of permanent membership to her was rejected by the General Committee Plaintiff contends that Bangalore-Club is a prestigious Institution and its membership is much sought and vanted privilege. The General body of the permanent members of the club has imposed moratorium that if an application for grant of permanent membership is rejected, the applicant would be precluded from applying for the grant of membership for atleast 40 years. She contends that education qualification is not a criteria to become a permanent member of Bangalore-Club . So many persons having no educational qualification became permanent members of the club. Therefore, rejection of her application on account of alleged 12 O.S.No. 26928/2011 discrepancy about her education qualification in the application form and latest information form without giving an opportunity to her to clarify about the said discrepancy is unilateral and a sheer breach of principle of natural justice. She contends that before rejecting her application, the General committee of Bangalore-Club has not followed the required procedure contemplated in Rule 7 of the Byelaws of the club. She contends that as per the said rule 30 days before the taking application for consideration for grant of permanent membership as per Chronological order of waiting list, the secretary shall notify in the notice board of the club the names of applicants, their proposers and seconders. This procedure was not followed before rejecting her application. Rejection of her application without following the above mandatory rule is illegal and it is in gross violation and complete dis-regard to the rules of Bangalore-Club.
3. Plaintiff contends that 2nd defendant who was incharge of membership portfolio of Bangalore-Club at the 13 O.S.No. 26928/2011 relevant period of time upon a superficial consideration rejected her application for grant of membership. In the case of H.A.Gopinath, 2nd defendant after noticing the discrepancy in the education qualification has given audience to him and on clarification, the membership was accorded to him. Therefore, the rejection of her application on the count of discrepancy about her educational qualification in the application form and the latest information form without giving opportunity to her to clarify and before putting her name in the notice board of the club as contemplated in rule 7.1(iv) is illegal, opposed to the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, malafide and in breach of rules and regulations of Bangalore-Club. Plaintiff contends that after the receipt of communication from Bangalore-Club regarding rejection of her application for grant of membership, she made several representations to defendants to consider her application for grant of membership in accordance with rules and bye-laws of the club. Defendants received the said representations without 14 O.S.No. 26928/2011 demur but, did not consider her representations. Therefore, left with no alternative, she filed the instant suit. On these and other grounds stated in the plaint, plaintiff prays to decree the suit and to grant the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for.
4. Defendants 2 and 14 filed written statement. They admitted that Bengaluru club is an association of persons. It is not a registered or incorporated in accordance with law. Therefore, it is not having legal sanctity. They admit that plaintiff has submitted application for grant of permanent membership; it was proposed by A. Chandrashekar and seconded by Raghavendra Dev and P.K.Krishnan, the permanent members of the club ; plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.99,270/- as membership fee; having regard to the discrepancy about educational qualification of plaintiff in the application form and the latest information form it was rejected. They contend that in view of Bangalore-Club is not having legal entity, the suit is to be filed by making all the members of 15 O.S.No. 26928/2011 the club as parties. Therefore, the instant suit filed only against the members of the general committee is not maintainable. They contend that the proposer A. Chandrashekar and Seconder Raghavendra Dev and P.K.Krishnan are also necessary parties to the suit. In view of plaintiff not made them as parties, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
5. Defendants 2 and 14 contend that there is no privity between the plaintiff and the Bangalore-Club. Therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the instant suit. Further they contend that the decision taken by the General committee of the Bangalore-Club is the internal affair of the said club. It is not amenable to challenge by filing a civil suit. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed in limine.
6. Defendants 2 and 14 contend that after scrutinisation of application of plaintiff and the documents submitted by her along with latest information form would show that she furnished false information about her 16 O.S.No. 26928/2011 educational qualification. Thus she wants to misrepresent the facts and mislead the club to consider her application favourably. Therefore, the general committee in its meeting dated: 4.12.2009 has decided not to grant membership to the plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 14 contend that the decision of General Committee dated: 4.12.2009 is in accordance with rules and bye-laws of the club. After rejection of plaintiff's application for grant of membership it was intimated to the proposer A.Chandrashekar and membership fee paid by the plaintiff was returned. Plaintiff who accepted the cheque issued towards repayment of membership fee is estopped from questioning the legality of resolution of General Committee dated:
4.12.2009. Defendants 2 and 14 contend that as per the rules there is no provision to give opportunity to the applicant to submit explanation. There is no privity between plaintiff and Bangalore-Club. Therefore, there is no necessity to give notice to the applicant or their proposers before rejecting the proposal for grant of 17 O.S.No. 26928/2011 membership. Hence, the contention of plaintiff that rejection of her application without giving opportunity to submit explanation is opposed to the principle of natural justice is not sustainable. On these and other grounds stated in the written statement, defendants 2 and 14 pray to dismiss the suit.
7. Defendant No.3 to 10, 12, 15 to 21 adopted the written statement of defendants 2 and 14.
8. Defendant No.22, the Bangalore-Club filed separate written statement . Defendant No.2 in addition to adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.2 and 14, contend that Bangalore-Club is an un-registered association. Therefore, plaintiff cannot make the un- registered association as party represented by Secretary. who is the salaried employee of the club. Defendant No.22 contends that on the ground of misrepresentation of educational qualification the application for grant of permanent membership of Mr. Ashok Balu, Mr. Shafakath Zaveri, Mr. Sundar Lal Sipani and Mr. Somil Habib were 18 O.S.No. 26928/2011 rejected. On these and other grounds defendant No.22 prays to dismiss the suit.
9. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, on 13/06/2013 the then presiding officer has formulated the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the rejection of the proposal of A. Chandrashekar to accord for permanent membership of Bangalore Club is the void ab-
initio?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for permanent injunction?
Deleted as per Order dt:
31.08.2021 and re-casted as under:
Whether plaintiff is entitle for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction.19
O.S.No. 26928/2011 (3) Whether the suit is hit by non-
joinder and mis-joinder of
necessary parties?
(4) What order or decree?
On 3.3.2021, the following additional issue was framed.
Whether defendants prove that an order dated: 6.12.2009 rejecting the proposal of A. Chandrashekar for according permanent membership to the plaintiff is in strict compliance of rules, regulations, procedures and bylaws of the Bengaluru Club?
On 31.08.2021 the following addl.Issue No.2 was framed.
Whether defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 prove that the suit is not maintainable?
10. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and a witness as PW.2 and produced documents marked at 20 O.S.No. 26928/2011 Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. On behalf of defendants, 6th defendant was examined as DW1 and 2nd defendant examined as DW2. They produced documents marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.11.
11. Heard the arguments on both side and perused record.
12. My findings on the above said issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1: In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2: Deleted as per order
dt: 31.08.2021
ISSUE NO.3: In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.4: Partly in Affirmative.
Addl.Issue
Dt:3.3.2021: In the Negative
Recasted
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Addl.Issue No.2: In the Negative
ISSUE NO.5 : As per the final
21
O.S.No. 26928/2011
order for the following:
REASONS
13. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.2:- This issue is regarding maintainability of the suit. Therefore, it is taken up for consideration before considering the other issues.
14. Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 contend that there is no privity between plaintiff and the Bangalore- Club. Therefore, plaintiff is not having legal right to seek the relief of declaration against Bangalore-Club or the members of its General Committee. Further they contend that the decision taken by the defendants regarding rejection of the proposal of A.Chandrashekar for granting permanent membership to the plaintiff is the internal affair of the Management of the Club. Such decision is not amenable to challenge by filing a civil suit. On the above 2 counts, Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 contend that the instant suit is not maintainable.
15. The Ld. Counsel for Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 in support of his contention that the suit is not 22 O.S.No. 26928/2011 maintainable has placed reliance on the following Judgments:
1. Judgment dt: 28.02.2017 in O.S.No. 6239/2013:
2. AIR 1975 KAR 117(Narayan Vs R.Vaidyanath and others). In this case in para no. 6 of the Judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka referring to Sec 34 of Specific Relief Act has stated the ingredients for the grant of Declaration and it read thus.
The plaintiff must be a person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property;
The defendant must be a person denying, or interested to deny, the plaintiff's title to such character or right;
The declaration sued for must be a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a legal character or to a right to property; and Where the plaintiff is able to seek further further relief than a mere declaration of title, he must seek such relief.
If any of the first three conditions is not fulfilled, the suit should be dismissed.
3. AIR 1970 SC 245(Co-operative Central Bank and others Vs Addl.
23
O.S.No. 26928/2011 City Civil & Sessions Judge Industrial Tribunal and others).
In this case the counsel for defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 is placing reliance of the observations made in para no.
10 of the judgment and it read thus.
We are unable to accept the submission that the bye-laws of a co-
operative society framed in pursuance of the provisions of the Act can be held to be law or to have the force of law. It has no doubt been held that, if a statute gives power to a Government or other authority to make rules, the rules so framed have the force of statute and are to be deemed to be incorporated as a part of the statute. That principle, however, does not apply to bye-laws of the nature that a co-operative society is empowered by the Act to make. The bye-
laws that are contemplated by the Act can be merely those which govern the internal management, business or administration of a Society. They may be binding between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statute. IN respect of bye- laws laying down conditions of service of the employees of a society, the bye-
laws would be binding between the society and the employees just in the same manner as conditions of service laid down by contract between the parties. In fact, after such bye-laws 24 O.S.No. 26928/2011 laying down the conditions of service are made and any person enters the employment of a society, those conditions of service will have to be treated as conditions accepted by the employee when entering the service and will thus bind him like conditions of service specifically forming part of the contract of service. The bye-laws that can be framed by a society under the Act are similar in nature to the Articles of Association of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and such Articles of Associations have never been held to have the force of law. In a number of cases, conditions of service for industries are laid down by standing orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and it has been held that, though such standing orders are binding between the employers and the employees of the industry governed by those Standing Orders, they do not have such force of law as to be binding on Industrial Tribunals adjudicating an industrial dispute. The Jurisdiction which is granted to Industrial Tribunals by the Industrial Disputes Act is not the jurisdiction of merely administering the existing laws and enforcing existing contracts. Industrial Tribunals have the tight even to vary contracts of service between the employer and the employees which jurisdiction can never 25 O.S.No. 26928/2011 be exercised by a civil court or a Registrar acting under the Co-operative Societies Act, so that the circumstance that, in granting relief on issue no. 1 the Tribunal will have to vary the special bye- laws framed b the Co-operative Bank does not lead to the inference that the Tribunal would be incompetent to grant the reliefs sought in this reference. In fact, the reliefs could only be granted by the Industrial Tribunal and could not fall within the scope of the powers of the Registrar dealing with a dispute under Section 61 of the Act.
4. AIR 2007 SC 1974 (D.Dwarakanatha Reddy Vs Chaitanya Bharathi Educational Society and others). In this case the counsel for defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 are placing reliance on the observations made in para no. 24 of the judgment and it read thus.
We are afraid the ratio laid down in Daver does not apply to the facts of the case. In the instant case, the controversy does not relate to expulsion of a member, The question is whether the appellants can be said to have been legally admitted promoter - Members.
Once it is held that the appellants were properly inducted and had become Promoter-Members of the Society, Principles of natural justice required 26 O.S.No. 26928/2011 issuance of the notice, calling for explanation and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. The case of the Society, however, is that appellants were never legally inducted as Promoter- Members and their so called induction was not in consonance with law. The said issue is yet to be decided. In our opinion, therefore, Daver is of no assistance the appellants at this stage. [See also Board of Control for Cricket in India and Anr. Netaji Crickert Club and Ors. Manu/SC/0019/2005:
AIR2005SC592].
16. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff in support of his contention that instant suit is maintainable has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. AIR 1952 Mysore 109 (Devaraje Urs V/s Ramakrishaiah): In this case in para no. 10 of the judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Mysore as held as under:
It was further held that the suit was governed by Art. 116. It was observed by Jenkins, C.J. after an examination of the basis underlying the rule laid down in England in 'Tweedle V. Atkinson'. (1861) 1 B & S. 393, that the administration of justice by the Courts in this Country is not to be in any way hampered by the doctrine laid down in that case and that the bar to filing a suit by the 27 O.S.No. 26928/2011 person not a direct party to the contract was probably one of procedure and not of substance.
"In India he points out 'We are free from these trammels and are guided in matters of procedure by the rule of justice, equity and good conscience.".
2. AIR 1955 Pat 442 ( Post Master General, Patna V/s Ram Kripal Sahu and anr): In this case in para no. 22 of the judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Patna as made the following observation :
There is no provision anywhere in law that a person who takes a benefit under a contract, although he is not a party to the contract, cannot sue and, therefore, if the Courts consider that it would be in aid of justice to adjudicate between the parties to the suit, although the plaintiff is not a party to the contract, the Courts are not legislating but they are only giving effect to the common place saying that Courts exist for doing justice between the suitors before them.
3. AIR 1997 Del 201 (Klaus Mittelbachert (Decd) through Lrs.
V/s East India Hotels Ltd): In this case the Ld counsel for the plaintiff pressed into service the findings given in para no. 123, 124 and 125 of the Judgment which reads as under:
28
O.S.No. 26928/2011 It was submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that if the plaintiff is choosing to enforce a liability arising out of a contract, then the suit has to be dismissed at its threshold as the Hotel's contract was with Lufthansa and not with the plaintiff. The plaintiff being a third party to the contract is not entitled to sue, submitted the Ld. Counsel. This contention has to be rejected obviously.
The doctrine of privity of contract is subject to many exceptions, one of them being that a beneficiary can sue on a contract for enforcement of he benefit intended to confer on him by the contract.
"A stranger to a contract which is to his benefit is entitled to enforce the agreement to his benefit".
"The person beneficially entitled under the agreement can sue even though not a party to the agreement itself".
The contract for stay in the Hotel was between Lufthanasa and the Hotel entitling the crew of Lufthanasa to stay as guest in the Hotel. The beneficiaries are those who would stay and hence the contract was for their benefit. Consequent to the breach of the contract those who stay in the Hotel would be entitled to sue.
Any other view of the law would create an anomaly. Those who are staying in the Hotel would not be entitled to sue because they were not parties to the contract. Lufthansa would not be entitled to sue as it has 29 O.S.No. 26928/2011 not suffered any injury. A view of the law creating such an anomalous situation cannot be sustained.
4. ILR 1990 Kar 3446 (M.G.Kadali Vs A. Krishna)
5. AIR 1963 SC 1144(T.P.Daver Vs Lodge Victoria No.363, S.C.Belgaum & Others) The following principles may be gathered from the above discussion.(1) A member of a masonic lodge is bound to abide by the rules of the lodge; and if the rules provide for expulsion, he shall be expelled only in the manner provided by the rules. (2) The lodge is bound to act strictly according to the rules, whether a particular rule is mandatory or directory falls to be decided in each case, having regard to the well settled rules of construction in that regard. (3) The jurisdiction of a civil court is rather limited; it cannot obviously sit as a court of appeal from decisions of such a body; it can set aside the order of such a body, if the said body acts without jurisdiction or does not act in good faith or acts in violation of the principles of natural 30 O.S.No. 26928/2011 justice as explained in the decisions cited supra.
6. AIR 1979 Cal 289( Chiranjan Jadavji Padia Vs Bhupesh Chandra Dutt and others)
7. ILR 1995 Kar 1566(SEcretary, Bangalore Turf Club Vs Prakash Srivatsava)
8. Judgment in O.S.No. 27077/2009 dated 16.11.2013 (B.K. Sampath Kumar V/s Bangalore Club) passed by 28th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
9. Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA NO. 283/2014 dated 08.12.2016 ( Bangalore Club V/s B.K. Sampath Kumar and others)
17. I went through the above cited judgments and the points urged by the Counsel on both side in support of their respective contentions in the written arguments submitted by them.
31
O.S.No. 26928/2011
18. As per Sec 9 of CPC the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except the suits whose cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Therefore the burden is on defendants to substantiate that the case on hand is either expressly or impliedly barred. In the instant case defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 have not pointed out any of the provision of law which bars the instant suit either expressly or impliedly. Therefore there is no statutory bar to take cognizance of the instant case by a Civil Court.
19. A perusal of Ex.P.1 would show that plaintiff has submitted the said application to Bangalore Club for grant of lady membership to her as per Rule 6.1(ii) of bye-laws of Bangalore Club. As per the bye-laws in force in the year 1998 Ex.P.1 application was proposed by one permanent member of the club namely A. Chandrashekar and seconded by 2 permanent members namely Raghavendra Dev and P.K. Krishanan. From the material on record it is evident that the Bangalore Club after receipt 32 O.S.No. 26928/2011 of Ex.P.1 application from plaintiff collected membership fee from her and also entered her application in the register of waiting list.
20. There is no dispute that merely because plaintiff submitted application for grant of membership she would not acquire any interest in the Bangalore Club and before the Bangalore Club accepted her application and grant membership there is no privity between plaintiff and Bangalore Club or the members of its general committee. Therefore the point for consideration is whether plaintiff is having right to file the instant suit on the count that the members of the general committee have not considered her application in accordance with the rules of the Bangalore Club.
21. In the Judgments cited supra by the Ld counsel for the plaintiff in the case of Post Master General, Patna V/s Ram Kripal Sahu and anothers and Klaus Mittelbachert (Decd) through Lrs. V/s East India Hotels 33 O.S.No. 26928/2011 Ltd. it was held that a person though not a party to the contract, if he is the beneficiary under the said contract, he is entitled to file a suit in a Civil Court to get the said benefit or adjudication of his right through the contract in question. In case of Post Master General cited supra it has been specifically stated that there is no provision in any law which says that a person who takes a benefit under a contract cannot sue merely on the count that he is not a party to the contract. Admittedly Ex.P.1 application was submitted by plaintiff to get permanent membership of the Bangalore Club. She filed the instant suit by contending that her application was not considered in accordance with the bye-laws of the Bangalore Club. Therefore without any difficulty it can be said that the proposer and seconders have given Ex.P.1 proposal to the Bangalore Club for the benefit of plaintiff. Therefore she being the aggrieved person is entitled to file a civil suit to declare that her application was not considered in accordance with the bye-laws of the Bangalore Club. In 34 O.S.No. 26928/2011 view of the above I hold that though plaintiff has not acquired any kind of interest over the Bangalore Club by submitting Ex.P.1 application she is having right to see that her application be considered in accordance with the rules of the Bangalore Club which are admittedly binding on defendants.
22. In the case of Narayana R. Vaidyanath and others, plaintiff questioned the legality of appointment of defendant No.2 and 3 for the post of Professor and Reader in Political Science. Plaintiff who also filed application for the said post was not selected. He questioned the legality of appointment of defendant No.2 and 3 alleging that it is illegal, irregular, void and in-operative. He sought the relief of Temporary Injunction restraining the University from giving effect to the appointment of defendant No.2 and 3. The trial court has granted Temporary Injunction. The High Court has set-aside the said order and dismissed the application filed by plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction by holding that the plaintiff failed to prima facie 35 O.S.No. 26928/2011 establish the legal character or right to grant injunction. The facts of the said case are not applicable to the case on hand.
23. In the case of D. Dwarakanath Reddy Vs Chaitnya Bharathi Educational Society & Others, plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they were legally inducted as members of society. Therefore, they are entitle to participate in the management and administration of society. They sought the relief of injunction restraining the society from conducting election to the Governing body without including them. In the said case, in contravention to the rules and bye-laws of the society, a resolution was passed to induct the plaintiffs as members of society. After noticing that the said resolution was not in accordance with rules and bye-laws of society, it was not implemented. Plaintiffs questioned the legality of the order not to implement the said resolution and sought the relief of temporary injunction restraining the society from conducting election without including them. The Hon'ble 36 O.S.No. 26928/2011 Supreme Court of India has opined that the resolution passed to induct plaintiffs as members has not attained finality and prima facie it appears to be in contravention of bye-laws and rules of the society. In view of the said resolution not reached finality, plaintiffs have no right to seek injunction against society from conducting election. The said findings given while passing order on temporary injunction application cannot be pressed into service while deciding the case on merit.
24. The judgment passed by my brother judge in O.S.No. 6239/2013 is not binding on this court. Therefore, this court is not obliged to countenance the observation made in the said judgment.
25. In the case of Co-operative Central Bank and others the dispute was between 25 Co-operative Central Banks in State of Andhara Pradesh and their employees regarding the salary allowances and other benefits of employees. In the said case the Co-operative Central Banks contended that as per the bye-laws of the Co- 37
O.S.No. 26928/2011 operative Central Banks the dispute between the Co- operative Banks and its employees is to be resolved as per the bye-laws and the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an order regarding the said aspect. In the said case the Honble Supreme Court of India has held that bye-laws of a society have no force of law and therefore the bye-laws would not take away the powers of the Industrial Tribunal the decide about the salary and other benefits of employees. The facts of the above case are not applicable to the case on hand.
26. The counsel for defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 have also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of J. Doulat Singh V/s Delhi Golf Club Limited reported in AIR 2002 Delhi 501. In the said case while considering the application for grant of temporary mandatory injunction the High Court of Delhi has opined that plaintiff has not established a strong prima facie case for the grant of temporary mandatory 38 O.S.No. 26928/2011 injunction. In the said case, plaintiff in his capacity as Senior Officer in the Indian Foreign Services was the member of Delhi Golf Club. Some days before his retirement on superannuation, he submitted application for the grant of A category membership "on out of turn" basis. The club has refused to grant membership to him "on out of turn"
basis and decided to consider his application as per waiting list. Questioning the said order, he filed the suit for declaration declaring that he has right to be accorded as member of club and sought the relief of mandatory injunction. The Honble High Court of Delhi has opined that the club has not yet granted membership to him.
Therefore, he is not entitle for mandatory injunction. In the instant case, plaintiff is requesting the court to direct the defendants to consider her application for grant of membership as per the waiting list. In para-20 of the above cited judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has opined that the contentions raised by plaintiff are to be considered while passing the judgment on merit.39
O.S.No. 26928/2011 Therefore, the observations made in J. Doulat Singh case while considering an application for temporary, mandatory injunction against the club is of no assistance to the defendants to substantiate that plaintiff has no right to file the instant suit. On the other hand the observations made in Para No. 20 of the Judgment that the contentions raised by plaintiff would have to be considered while passing the judgment on merit would support the case of the plaintiff that the suit is maintainable and the contentions raised by her are to be considered while passing Judgment on merit.
27. In the case of T.P.Daver cited supra the Honble Supreme Court of India in para NO.9 of the judgment has stated that while considering the legality or otherwise, of the decision of the club or association the jurisdiction of the civil court is limited. It can set-aside the order of the club if the body of the club acts without jurisdiction or does not act in good faith. Therefore, the contention of Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 that the decision of the General Committee rejecting Ex.P. 1 application/proposal for grant 40 O.S.No. 26928/2011 of permanent membership to the plaintiff is not amenable to the Civil Court is not sustainable. In view of aforesaid findings I hold that defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 have failed to prove that the instant suit is not maintainable. Accordingly I Answer Addl.Issue No. 2 in the negative.
28. ISSUES NO.1 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1:-
These two issues are in respect of legality or otherwise of an order dated: 04.12.2009 rejecting the proposal of A.Chandrashekar for granting permanent membership to the plaintiff in the Bangalore-Club. Therefore, to avoid repetition of facts and evidence and also for convenience, these two issues which are interrelated to each other are taken together for consideration.
29. In the instant case, there is no dispute that plaintiff submitted Ex.P. 1 application for the grant of permanent membership to her in Bangalore-Club, the said application was proposed by A. Chandrashekar , the permanent member of the Club and seconded by two permanent members of the Club namely Mr. Raghavendra 41 O.S.No. 26928/2011 Dev and Mr. Krishnan, along with application plaintiff paid the membership fee and she also paid enhanced membership fee and the Secretary of Bangalore-Club after scrutinising the particulars and verifying the signatures of proposers accepted the said application for registration in Sl.No.118 and given waiting list No.2061. Plaintiff contends that after registration of her application, the General Committee of the Bangalore-Club rejected it vide communication dt: 6.12.2009 on extraneous and irrelevant considerations without following the procedure contemplated in Rule 7 of the bye-laws of the Bangalore- Club. On the other hand, Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 contend that in Ex.P. 1 application form plaintiff shown her educational qualification as B.Com, whereas in the latest information form, she stated that she is B.Com., (incomplete). Thus, the plaintiff has furnished untrue information to the Club. Therefore, she is guilty of misrepresenting the facts. The Bangalore-Club do not tolerate or accept any kind of misrepresentation to it. 42
O.S.No. 26928/2011 Therefore, the General Committee of Bangalore-Club by exercising its power conferred under Rule 7.1(v) of Bye- laws has rightly rejected Ex.P.1 application submitted by plaintiff for the grant of permanent membership. They contend that the rejection of Ex.P. 1 application is in strict compliance of rules, regulations, procedures and bye-laws of the Bangalore-Club.
30. Ex.P. 17 is the rules of Bangalore-Club. Rule 7 deals regarding election of permanent members. To appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it would be convenient to extract Rule 7 of Ex.P. 17 Rules of Bangalore-Club and it reads thus:
RULE 7 : PERMANENT MEMBERS :
7.1 (i) Each candidate for Membership shall be proposed by one and seconded by five other Permanent Members to all of whom he / she is personally known.
(ii) Every proposal for Membership together with the prescribed entrance fee shall be handed over to the Secretary, who shall scrutinise the particulars in the presence of the proposer and verify all signatures on the proposal. If the proposal is complete in all respects, itshall be accepted by the Secretary for Registration, a serial number allotted to it and a receiptissued to the proposer for the aforesaid fee. Simultaneously 43 O.S.No. 26928/2011 the name of the candidates shallbe entered in the Waiting List Register for Permanent Members under written advice to the Computer Section, which shall make necessary entry in the master tape.
(iii) The Secretary shall publish an updated Waiting List of applicants from time to time on the Club Notice Board in the Main Lounge and this shall be in strict chronological order.
(iv) All proposals shall be considered only as per the published Waiting List. Before the proposals come up for consideration by the General Committee, the Secretary shall get the Waiting List Register initialled by the President or in his / her absence, by the Vice-President. The Secretary shall notify the candidates names and particulars and also the names of the proposer and seconders on the aforesaid Notice Board for a period of thirty days before the names come up for consideration by the General Committee. Objections, if any against a candidate being considered for Membership, may be submitted to the Secretary in writing by any Permanent Member during the aforesaid period of thirty days. Such objections shall be treated as privileged communications.
(v) Whilst considering proposals for Membership, the General Committee shall scrutinise them and satisfy themselves that they are in accordance with the Waiting List and in strict chronological order. The General Committee may reject a proposal at this stage if it considers it prudent to do so. If the General Committee does not reject the proposal at this stage the candidate shall be called for an interview and the General Committee shall proceed with the election which shall take place after expiry of the period of 30 days specified in Rule 7.1(iv). If the General Committee has been unable to verify any of the facts in issue of any candidate, it may postpone the election of such candidate for a period not exceeding sixty days from the date he / she became eligible for balloting. An application once 44 O.S.No. 26928/2011 rejected shall not be reviewed by the General Committee. The election shall be by simple majority.
31. From the facts stated by PW.1 and Dws 1 and 2, it is clear that the Secretary of Bangalore-Club after scrutinising Ex.P. 1 application has accepted it for registration, accordingly, it was registered by giving Sl.No.118 and also registered in the waiting list Register of permanent members under waiting list No.2061. Ex.P.1 application is dated: 7.7.1998. After registration of the said application in Sl.No.118 and waiting List No.2061 on 30.08.1999 and 26.03.2001, the plaintiff was called upon to make payment of enhanced membership fee and accordingly, plaintiff paid the said fee to the Bangalore- Club.
32. A perusal of Ex.P. 9 intimation dated: 6.10.2009 would show that the General Committee did not accept the proposal of A.Chandrashekar submitted by plaintiff under Ex.P. 1 application for the grant of permanent membership to her on the count that the educational qualification 45 O.S.No. 26928/2011 mentioned by her in Ex.P. 1 application do not tally with the information furnished by her in the latest information form. Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 contend that Ex.P. 1 application was rejected by the General Committee in its meeting held on 4.12.2009. The copy of the minutes of meeting is marked at Ex.D. 1. Defendants intimated the decision of General Committee to the Proposer A.Chandrashekar through Ex.P. 9 letter dated: 6.12.2009.
33. Thus, from the contention taken by Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 , it is clear that Ex.P. 1 application submitted by plaintiff for grant of permanent membership was rejected only on the count that her educational qualification mentioned in Ex.P. 1 application and in the latest information form are different.
34. Rule 6(i) of the Rules of Bangalore-Club ( Ex.P.
17) deals regarding permanent members. As per the said rule, the only requirement to file an application for permanent membership is that the age of the applicant should be more than 25 years. In the rules of Bangalore- 46
O.S.No. 26928/2011 Club, no any other requirement is stated to file an application for permanent membership. Rule 7.1 of Ex.P. 17 deals regarding the procedure to be followed by the Club on receipt of application for permanent membership. Rule 7.1 consists of 5 sub-rules. In the instant case, there is no dispute that Ex.P. 1 application submitted by plaintiff for the grant of permanent membership was passed through 3 stages mentioned in Rule 7.1(i) to (iii). As per Rule 7.1(iv) the Secretary shall notify the candidate's name and particulars and also the names of proposer and seconders in the Notice-Board, 30 days before placing the said proposal for consideration by the General Committee. After notifying the names, the members of the club can submit objection to the said proposal. If anybody files objection, it shall be treated as privilege communication. 30 days after notifying the name of a candidate and proposers in the notice board, when the said proposal is placed before the General Committee, as per Rule 7.1(v), the General Committee shall scrutinise the said proposal 47 O.S.No. 26928/2011 and satisfy that it is in accordance with waiting list and strict chronological order. The General Committee may reject the proposal at this stage if it considers it prudent to do so.
35. Admittedly, in the instant case, before the General Committee of the Bangalore-Club taken up Ex.P.1/ proposal for consideration, the name of plaintiff and his proposers were not notified as contemplated in Rule 7.1(iv) of the Rules of Bangalore-Club. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has strenuously contended that 2 nd defendant, who was handling the port-folio of scrutinising the application for grant of permanent membership on behalf of General Committee with a malafide intention to reject the application/proposal by bypassing the stage of notifying the name of plaintiff and her proposers in the notice board has taken up the said application and rejected it on extraneous and irrelevant considerations.
36. The Ld. Counsel for the Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 has strenuously contended that on con-joint 48 O.S.No. 26928/2011 reading of rule 7.1(iv) and (v) of Ex.P. 17 Rules of Bangalore-Club would give an indication that if the General Committee does not reject the proposal as stated in Rule 7.1(v), then the name of candidate and proposer are to be notified in the notice board of the club and 30 days after such notification it will be taken for election. He submits that notifying the name of the applicants and proposers in the notice board as contemplated in Rule 7.1(iv) of Bangalore-Club would come after the General Committee taken a decision not to reject the application or proposal for grant of permanent membership. He further submits that the purpose of notifying the names of candidates and proposers in the notice board as contemplated under Rule 7.1(iv) is to call the objections from the members. Therefore, not notifying the name of plaintiff and her proposer in the notice board would not in anyway prejudice the plaintiff.
37. The normal rule is that if a rule is having sub- rules, the requirement stated in the earlier sub rule is to be 49 O.S.No. 26928/2011 complied with before complying the requirement of the later sub-rule. On meaningful reading of Rule 7.1(iv) and
(v), in between the lines, makes it clear that the names of applicant and proposers shall be notified in the notice board atleast 30 days before the General Committee takes the said application/proposal for grant of permanent membership for consideration. The meaning of sentence in Rule 7.1(v) that "if the General Committee does not reject the proposal at this stage, the candidate shall be called for an interview and the General Committee shall proceed with election which shall take place after the expiry of 30 days specified in Rule 7.1(iv)" is that after the scrutinisation of the proposal by the General Committee as stated in the beginning of Rule 7.1(v) the calling of the candidate for interview shall be only after expiry of 30 days of notifying the names of candidates and proposers as contemplated in Rule 7.1(iv).
38. It is settled law that when there is a conflict between the two sub-rules of a Rule, the court has to 50 O.S.No. 26928/2011 interpret the said rules by adopting the rule of harmonious construction. While doing so the court should avoid "a head on Clash" between the said rules and interpret in such a way that as far as possible effect should be given to both rules. In support of my view I place reliance of the ruling of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Land mark case of CIT Vs Hindustan Bulk Carriers. In the said case, the Honble Supreme Court of India has laid down 5 principles of the rule of Hormonious construction and they are as under:
1) The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.
2) The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in another unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences.
3) When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions, the courts must interpret them in such as way so that effect is given to both the provisions as much as possible.
4) Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a 51 O.S.No. 26928/2011 useless number or dead is not harmonious construction
5) To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.
39. A perusal of Rule 7.1(iv) and (v) would show that in both the rules there is reference regarding notifying the names of candidate and proposers in the notice board of the Club. In Rule 7.1(iv) it is stated that the Secretary shall notify the candidate's name and particulars and also the names of the proposers and seconders on the notice board for a period of 30 days, before the names come up for consideration by the General Committee In Rule 7.1(v) it is stated that if the General Committee does not reject the proposal the candidate shall be called for an interview and the general committee shall proceed with election which shall take place after expiry of the period of 30 days specified in Rule 7.1(iv). In both the sub-rules before referring to the notification, the word 'shall' is used . From this it is clear that notifying the names of candidates and proposers in the notice board along with 52 O.S.No. 26928/2011 their particulars is a mandatory requirement. The harmonious interpretation of the above 2 rules would be that as per sub-rule (iv) the secretary shall notify the candidate's name, particulars and the names of proposer and seconders in the notice board for a period of a 30 days before the said application/proposal taken up for consideration by the General Committee and as per sub- rule (v) after 30 days of such notification the General Committee after scrutinisation of that proposal if not rejected, it is to be taken for election which would take place naturally after 30 days of notifying the names of the candidate and proposers in the notice board as stated in Rule 7.1(iv). Thus, on meaningful reading of above 2 rules would show that there is no clash or conflict between the said 2 sub-rules and the wordings of Sub-Rule (v) would not give the meaning that the General Committee can take an application for consideration without notifying the names of candidates and proposers as stated in Sub- Rule(iv). Therefore, the contention of Defendants 1 to 10, 53 O.S.No. 26928/2011 12, 14 to 22 that the General Committee can scrutinise and consider the application/proposal for grant of permanent membership before notifying the names of candidates and their proposers as contemplated in Rule 7.1(iv) cannot accepted.
40. Plaintiff has produced Ex.P. 21 report of Enquiry Committee constituted by General Committee in its General Body Meeeting dated: 27.06.2010 to conduct enquiry regarding the allegations of violations of Rules, bye-laws and established procedures of the Club by the General Committee members of the financial year of 2009-10. During the course of cross-examination of DW.2 Amarnath Kamath when the copy of said report was confronted to him, he admitted it. Therefore, it is marked at Ex.P. 21. During the course of cross-examination of DW.2. Ex.P. 20 the minutes of 143rd Annual General Body Meeting dated:
26.6.2011 and Ex.P. 22, the Annual report for the year 2010-11 were marked by confrontation. At page No.21 of Ex.P. 21 enquiry report the Enquiry committee has opined 54 O.S.No. 26928/2011 that the General Committee of the Bangalore-Club of the financial year 2009-10 has violated the provisions of bye-
laws regarding screening of application for new membership in the case of 4 applicants stated in Annexure-F of the report. In Annexure-F, the name of plaintiff is at Sl.No.2. A perusal of Ex.P. 20 the minutes of 143rd Annual General Body Meeting held on 26.06.2011 would show that in the said meeting, Ex.P. 21 enquiry report was placed for consideration. The permanent members of the Bangalore-Club voted in favour of bringing amendments and other steps suggested in Ex.P. 21 enquiry report. DW.2 has admitted that he presided over 143rd Annual General Body Meeting held on 26.6.2011. DW.2 in the cross-examination admitting Ex.P. 21 enquiry report has stated that he will not accept the said report in whole. He stated that he will not accept the findings of enquiry committee in Ex.P. 21 report that the General Committee of 2009-10 has violated the provisions of Rules and Bye-laws of the Bangalore-Club while 55 O.S.No. 26928/2011 scrutinising/screening inter alia the application/ proposal for grant of permanent membership to the plaintiff. DW.2 who presided over the 143rd Annual Genral Body Meeting held on 26.6.2011 in which meeting Ex.P. 21 enquiry report was placed for consideration and accepted cannot be allowed to contend that he will not accept the said report in whole. Thus, from the material on record, it is evident that the General Committee has rejected Ex.P. 1 application/ proposal for the grant of permanent membership of the plaintiff without following procedure stated in Rule 7.1(iv) of the Rules of Bangalore-Club.
41. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has strenuously contended that Ex.P. 17 the Rules of Bangalore-Club are binding on defendants. The rules are made to conduct the administration and business of the Club smoothly and to avoid mismanagement/ arbitrariness. Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 have not explained why the 2 nd defendant, who was incharge of the portfolio of screening and scrutinising the application/proposal for grant of 56 O.S.No. 26928/2011 permanent membership has taken Ex.P. 1 application/ proposal without following the mandatory procedure stated in Rule 7.1(iv). He submits that while considering the legality or otherwise of the rejection of Ex.P. 1 application/proposal the court has to consider whether the general committee scrupulously followed the procedures contemplated in the Rule 7.1 or not and not whether the plaintiff is prejudiced or not due to not following of any rule. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on the following Judgments:
1. Indian Appeals(Nazir Ahmad Vs The King-Emperor
2. (1983) 4 SCC 582(B.S.Minhas Vs Indian Statistical Institute and others
3. ILR 2020 Kar 415(K.P.Bheemaiah Vs BEL & Others)
42. In went through the above cited judgments and relevant portions upon which the Ld. Counsel for the 57 O.S.No. 26928/2011 plaintiff placed reliance. Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 being the members of the General Committee cannot contend that they can reject the application/ proposal for grant of permanent membership without following procedure stated in Rule 7.1(i) to (v) of the rules of Bangalore-Club. In the case of B.S.Minhas cited supra, the Honble Supreme Court of India has opined that the purpose of making bye-laws is to conduct the affairs of the society or club smoothly and systematically and to avoid arbitrariness. The compliance also seems to be necessary in the name of fair play. In the case of K.P.Bheemaiah Vs BEL & Others the Honble Supreme Court of India has opined that the authority incharge of administration cannot be allowed to contend that it did not follow a particular rule because following of that rule will not make any difference in its decision. Therefore, having regard to the observation made by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the above cited judgments, defendants who have rejected Ex.P. 1 application/ proposal without following the procedure in 58 O.S.No. 26928/2011 rule 7.1(iv) cannot be allowed to contend that plaintiff would not be put to prejudice due to non-following the said requirement. On the other hand, non-following of the said rule would support the contention of plaintiff that Ex.P. 1 application/ proposal was rejected without following the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the Bangalore-Club.
43. As I have already stated above, the only ground for rejection of Ex.P. 1 application/proposal is that the educational qualification of plaintiff mentioned in Ex.P. 1 application/proposal and in the latest information form are different. In Ex.P. 1 application/proposal the educational qualification of plaintiff is shown as B.Com.,. In the latest information form, her qualification is shown as B.Com(incomplete). In Para No. 23 of written statement, Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 contend that plaintiff has not furnished the documents in support of her education qualification. In addition to that, her qualification mentioned in Ex.P. 1 application/proposal and latest 59 O.S.No. 26928/2011 information form would not tally . This led to a strong suspicion that plaintiff misrepresenting facts and misleading the club in order to consider her application favourably. The Ld. Counsel for Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 has strenuously contended that the Bangalore-Club is against the practice of misrepesentation of any kind. The misrepresentation by the plaintiff is apparent on comparison of Ex.P. 1 application/ proposal and information given by her in the latest information Form. Therefore, the General Committee has resolved not to grant membership to the plaintiff who stated untrue facts in the application/proposal and latest information form and thereby guilty of misrepresentation.
44. Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act defines misrepresentation. It reads thus:-
"Misrepresentation" defined.--"Misrepresentation"
means and includes-- --"Misrepresentation" means and includes--"
(1) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he 60 O.S.No. 26928/2011 believes it to be true;
(2) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him;
(3) causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
45. On reading of the above definition it is clear that to constitute misrepresentation, the following ingredients/essentials/requirements should be there. Firstly, the misrepresentation must be in respect of material fact/s; secondly misrepresentation must be to induce other party to enter into contract and thirdly, misrepresentation must have been addressed by one party to misled the another party. Rule 6.1 of Rules of Bangalore-Club deals regarding permanent membership. In Rule 6-1(i) it is stated that Ladies and Gentlemen above the age of 25 years can apply for permanent membership. Except the said requirement, no any other requirement is 61 O.S.No. 26928/2011 stated in Rule 6 or any other Rule of Bangalore-Club to file an application for grant of permanent membership. DWs1 and 2 in their evidence have stated that educational qualification is not a criteria to grant permanent membership in the Bangalore-Club. They stated that an uneducated person can also become a permanent member of Bangalore-Club. Therefore, from Ex.P. 17, the Rules of Bangalore-Club and facts stated by DWs1 and 2, it is clear that educational qualification of a candidate is not a relevant factor to be considered while considering an application/proposal for grant permanent membership in the Bangalore-Club.
46. A perusal of Ex.P. 1 application/proposal would show that at the time of submitting the application, the age of plaintiff was 28 years. In Ex.P. 11, the Degree certificate issued by Principal of Bishop Cotton Women (Christian) College, it is stated that plaintiff has completed 3 years course of B.Com in the academic year 1989-1992. After completion of the course, if the plaintiff has not cleared all 62 O.S.No. 26928/2011 the subjects, she is having an opportunity to take examination and to clear/pass the uncleared/passed subjects. It appears that after submission of Ex.P. 1 application/proposal , the plaintiff did not clear/pass all the subjects to get B.Com. Degree. Therefore, in the latest information form, she informed the club that she did not complete B.Com. Thus, before Ex.P.1 application/proposal was taken for consideration by the General Committee, the plaintiff has stated the truth about her educational qualification. When such is the case, the contention of defendants that plaintiff has stated untrue facts and misrepresented the club about her educational qualification to consider her application favourably cannot be accepted.
47. DW.1 in the cross-examination at page No.15 has stated that while considering the application/proposal for grant of permanent membership to Mrs. Chethana Shambhu and D.S.Vasudev, the General Committee sought clarifications and written letters to the University about 63 O.S.No. 26928/2011 their educational qualifications. DW.2 in the cross- examination at page No.8, para No.5 has admitted the said fact. A perusal of Ex.D. 1 minutes of General Committee Meeting dated: 4.12.2009 in which meeting, the Ex.P. 1 application/proposal was rejected, an opportunity was given to B.S.Vasudev to submit original degree certificate in support of his educational qualification and in the case of Mr. Chetan Shambhu, the General Committee has decided to call clarification from Bangalore University regarding whether educational qualification indicated in bracket have any significance as per University rules. Ex.P. 9 is the Minutes of General Committee meeting dated: 20.03.2009. In the said meeting in case of Anil Padiwal, the General Committee decided to call clarification regarding wrong information given by him in the application. Thus, from the material on record and facts stated by Dws 1 and 2 would show that in certain cases, when the committee noticed inconsistency regarding educational qualification of a candidate furnished in application/proposal and in the 64 O.S.No. 26928/2011 latest information form an opportunity was given for clarification. DW.2 Amaranath Kamath who scrutinised Ex.P. 1 application/proposal has stated that after noticing inconsistency in the educational qualification of the plaintiff in Ex.P. 1 application/proposal and the latest information form clarification was not sought either from plaintiff or from his proposer. From this, it is clear that the members of General Committee has taken different decisions in the similar circumstances. Defendants have admitted that once the application/proposal for grant of permanent membership was rejected there is moratorium for 40 years. Therefore, after rejection of application for 40 years the candidate cannot file fresh application for grant of permanent membership. When such is the case, the members of General Committee have to scrutinise the applications for the grant of permanent membership with care and caution and by following rules and regulations of the Club. After noticing inconsistency in the educational qualification of a candidate applied for permanent 65 O.S.No. 26928/2011 membership calling clarification from some of the candidates or their proposers and rejecting the application/ proposal of some of the candidates on the ground of inconsistency in the educational qualification without giving opportunity would not pass the test of fairness and fair play in the administration of the club.
48. The Ld. Counsel for Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 placing reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of D. Dwarakanath Reddy Vs Chaitnya Bharathi Educational Society & Others reported in AIR 2007 SC 1794 has strenuously contended that there is no privity between plaintiff and Bangalore-Club. Therefore, before taking decision regarding Ex.P. 1 application/proposal there is no necessity of giving an opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff.
49. There is no quarrel about the ratio laid down in the above cited judgment that a person who is not having privitiy with the club cannot contend that as per the principles of natural justice an opportunity of being heard 66 O.S.No. 26928/2011 is to be given before taking a decision against him. But, it does not mean that the Managing Committee can take different decision in the same situation pertaining to different persons. As stated by the Honble Supreme Court of India in a case of (B.S.Minhas Vs Indian Statistical Institute and others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 582 cited supra, the purpose of making bye-laws, rules and regulations is to conduct the affairs of society or club smoothly and to avoid arbitrariness and it is also necessary in the name of fair play. When the educational qualification of a candidate is not a relevant factor for granting permanent membership, rejecting the application on the count of mismatching of educational qualification mentioned in the application/proposal and latest information form without giving opportunity to the plaintiff when in a similar case, an opportunity was given to others amounts to arbitrariness.
50. The Ld. Counsel for the Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 in page No.5 of his written arguments has given 67 O.S.No. 26928/2011 list of candidates whose applications/proposals for grant of permanent membership were rejected on the count of not matching of their educational qualification mentioned in the application/proposal and latest information form. Plaintiff has produced Ex.P. 18 judgment passed by the 26 th Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in O.S.No. 25007/2015. A perusal of Ex.P. 18 judgment would show that R. Krishna whose application was dismissed by Bangalore-Club on the count of mismatching of his educational qualification in the application/proposal and in the latest information form has filed the said suit for the relief of declaration to declare that the rejection of his application is void, ab-initio and it is to be set-aside and direction is to be given to General Committee to consider his application in accordance with rules of Bangalore-Club. After service of summons, the members of the Bangalore- Club did not contest the suit by engaging a Counsel. Therefore, R. Krishna got decree in his favour. In the cross- examination of DWs1 and 2 when the Ld. Counsel for 68 O.S.No. 26928/2011 plaintiff asked questions to them regardinbg non-contesting of O.S.No. 25007/2015 to facilitate R. Krishna to get the judgment in his favour easily and grant of permanent membership to some other persons whose applications were dismissed on mismatching of educational qualification, Dws 1 and 2 did not deny granting membership to R. Krishna and some other candidates despite the managing committee noticed mismatch of educational quelification in the application form and latest information form, they gave escaping answers by saying that they do not know about the said case and the decision of managing Committee regarding the grant of membership to some of the candidates whose applications were initially not considered due to mismatching of educational qualification. It is not the case of defendants that they filed appeal against Ex.P. 18 judgment and Ex.P. 19 decree. Thus, from the material on record would show that the General Committee of the Bangalore-Club granted membership to some of the candidates despite there is 69 O.S.No. 26928/2011 inconsistency about their educational qualifications furnished to the club on the basis of the court order or by calling explanation from the candidates or proposers or from the educational institutions. But, without following the procedure contemplated in Rule 7.1 of Rules of the Bangalore-Club, Ex.P. 1 application/proposal for the grant of permanent membership for the plaintiff was rejected arbitrarily. In view of my aforesaid findings I hold that Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 failed to prove that Ex.P. 1 application/proposal for the grant of permanent membership to the plaintiff was rejected in accordance with strict compliance of rules, regulations, procedures and bye-laws of the Bangalore-Club. On the other hand, plaintiff proved that Ex.P. application/proposal was rejected arbitrarily and therefore, it is illegal and void. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Additional Issue in Negative .
51. ISSUE NO.3: Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 contend that suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of 70 O.S.No. 26928/2011 parties. DW.1 in para No.2 of his examination-in-chief has stated that the proposer A.Chandrashekar and the seconders namely Raghavendra Dev and Mr. P.K.Krishnan are necessary parties to the suit. In view of they not made as parties, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
52. As per the rules of Bangalore-Club, a person interested to become a permanent member of the Club has to submit application in the prescribed form and it has to be proposed and seconded by permanent members of the Club. The number of proposers and seconders will change from time to time. Ex.P. 1 application/proposal was given for the grant of permanent membership to plaintiff. The proposers and seconders knew the plaintiff therefore, they put their signatures as proposers and seconders. They are not prejudiced due to the rejection of Ex.P. 1 application/proposal . Therefore, their presence is not necessary to enable the court to determine the real questions involved in the suit. Hence, the contention of 71 O.S.No. 26928/2011 Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 that the proposers and seconders are necessary parties to the suit and in view of they not made as parties, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is not sustainable.
53. In para No.3 and 4 of the written statement, Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 contend that all the members of the Bangalore-Club are to be made as parties. Therefore, the instant suit filed making only defendants 1 to 21, the permanent members of Bangalore-Club, who were in General Committee of the year 2009-10 is not maintainable. Defendants 1 to 21 contend that they are not necessary parties to the suit. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
54. In the case of P.Vishwanatham Vs Bangalore- Club and others, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that in a suit against un-registered society or Club, all the members are to be made as parties. If the members are more, then the plaintiff has to file the suit by complying the requirements of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. A 72 O.S.No. 26928/2011 perusal of order sheet would show that the application filed by plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC was allowed on 23.06.2012 permitting the plaintiff to file the instant suit against defendants 1 to 21, the permanent members of the club, who were in the General Committee at the relevant period of time by giving notice to all the members of the Club by making publication in 'Hindu', the English Newspaper and 'Samyuktha Karnataka', Kannada Daily newspaper. Plaintiff complied the said order and made publication in 'Hindu', the English Newspaper and 'Samyuktha Karnataka', Kannada Daily newspaper. Thus, plaintiff has filed the instant suit by complying the requirements of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. Defendants 1 to 21 being the members of General Committee who rejected Ex.P.1 application/ proposal are necessary parties to the suit. Therefore, the contention of defendants 1 to 21 that they are not necessary parties to the suit, therefore, the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties is not sustainable. In view of the above I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative. 73
O.S.No. 26928/2011
55. RECASTED ISSUE NO.2: The Learned Counsel for Defendants 1 to 10, 12, 14 to 22 in support of his arguments that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. RFA No.1021/ 2010 (R. Bhuvanendra Kumar V M/s.
Cosmopolitan Club),
2. AIR 1982 SC 1555 (I.J.Divakar and others V. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others.)
3. Civil Application No.5909/2016 (Hasmukhbhai Mohanlal Patel Vs State of Gujarat),
4. O.S.No.416/2010 on the file of Delhi District Court(Praveen Kumar Khullar Vs Shalimar Social Club) I went through the above cited judgments. In the case of R. Bhuvan Kumar, plaintiff has sought the relief of mandatory injunction directing the M/s Cosmopolitan Club to apt him as its permanent member without demanding 74 O.S.No. 26928/2011 any further membership fee by withdrawing their letter dated: 24.06.2005. In the said case, the club has called upon the plaintiff to pay enrollment fees of Rs.75,000/-. Plaintiff contends that he is not liable to pay the said fee as he already paid membership fee of Rs.10,000/-. He contends that a letter dated: 26.04.2005 calling upon him to pay additional/balance enrollment fees of Rs.75,000/- is to be recalled. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has opined that in view of plaintiff failed to pay the balance enrollment fee of Rs.75,000/- the club has returned Rs.10,000/- to him which he paid as initial enrollment fee. In view of plaintiff failed to pay the balance enrollment fee, he has no right to claim the membership of the club. In this case, admittedly, as per communication made by the concerned of Bangalore-Club, plaintiff has paid in total a sum of Rs.99,270/-. Therefore, the case of R. Bhuvan Kumar is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
75
O.S.No. 26928/2011
56. In the case of Hasmukh Bai Mohanlal Patel, the petitioner has participated in the online bid for allotment of Quarry-lease of sand in an area ie., Block 6 and 7. He is the highest bidder. The State of Gujarath has issued a communication to him stating that the bid offered by him did fetch a fair price, therefore, it is not accepted. The petitioner challenged the said communication. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarath has opined that inviting a bid is an invitation to offer and application made by the petitioner is an offer. The said offer was not accepted by the Government. Therefore, there is no concluded contract. In addition to that, the High Court of Gujarath has opined that the Government has given advertisement for allotment of Quarry lease in order to get a fair price. The purpose behind giving lease of the Government land for Quarry is to augment funds for utilisation for the welfare of the public at large. Therefore, the State Governdment is having an authority not to accept the offer of the highest bidder if it is 76 O.S.No. 26928/2011 not a fair price. The facts of the above case are not applicable to the case on hand.
57. Defendants 1 to 10, 12,14 to 22 placed reliance on the judgment in O.S.No. 416/2010 passed by District Court of Delhi . The said judgment is not binding on this court. Therefore, findings given in the said judgment cannot be countenance.
58. In the case of I.G. Diwakar and others, the petitioners questioned the validity of appointment of Junior Engineers by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by contending that as per advertisement made by the Government, they appeared for competitive written exam and also for viva-voce. The Government of Andhra Pradesh without completing the process of appointment of Junior Engineers on the basis of competitive exam and viva-voce has withdrawn the said notification and regularised the service of Junior Engineers who were working on contract basis. The Honble Supreme Court of India has opined that appearing for examination and also viva-voce itself 77 O.S.No. 26928/2011 would not create any right to the post to which the petitioners appeared. Making advertisement of holding examination is only an offer. The petitioners by writing examination makes them eligible to consider for the said post. Writing examination itself would not create right to the post in question. By making above observation, the Honble Supreme Court of India has refused to set-aside the regularisation of service of temporary Junior Engineers. In para-6 of the judgment, the Honble Supreme Court of India has made following observations:
Even though we reject both the contentions, equity demands that the matter cannot be allowed to rest here. Appellants, fresh engineering graduates, applied for post of Junior Engineer in response to the advertisement issued by the commission. They appeared at the viva voce test. A hope was generated in their minds that if they can successfully compete and come within the zone of selection they would be able to secure Government service. By subsequent regularisation the euphoria generated by the advertisement has proved a mirage. We, therefore, asked the learned Solicitor-General who appeared for the respondents and with his atypical fairness he stated that there are still number of posts of Junior Engineer for which the requisition is pending with the Commission. In order to do justice between the parties and not to 78 O.S.No. 26928/2011 leave the appellants, fresh young engineering graduates, in lurch, we direct that the commission shall proceed to finalise the list of selection on the basis of the viva voce tests conducted and marks assigned and forward the same to the Government within two months from today. If the appellants or any one of them fall within the zone of selection, they must be first appointed according to their place in the select list before any outsider is appointed hereafter to the post of the Junior Engineer in any branch of Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service and this must be irrespective of the Department in which post of Junior Engineer is available. The appeal to the extent herein indicated is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
59. The above observation made by Honble Supreme Court of India in para No.6 would support the contention of the plaintiff that after accepting her application for the grant of permanent membership and receipt of membership fee, the defendants are due bound to consider her application in accordance with rules and bye-laws of Bangalore-Club.
60. While answering issue No.1 I have held that plaintiff proved that Defendants rejected Ex.P. 1 application/proposal for the grant of permanent 79 O.S.No. 26928/2011 membership to her in the Bangalore-Club without following the rules of the Bangalore-Club. In view of my said finding the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the action of Defendants rejecting Ex.P. 1 application/proposal of Mr. A.Chandrashekar for granting permanent membership to plaintiff in the General Committee dated:
4.12.2009 and communicated to proposer A.Chandrashekar through Ex.P. 9 communication is void and illegal.
61. After rejection of Ex.P. 1 application, defendants issued Ex.P.10 cheque towards re-payment of membership fee paid by plaintiff. Plaintiff has not encashed the said cheque. Therefore, the membership fee paid by plaintiff is still in bank account of Bangalore-Club. In view of my finding that the action of defendants rejecting Ex.P. 1 application/proposal for grant of permanent membership to the plaintiff is not in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangalore-Club, thus, it is void and illegal, it would be just and necessary to grant the relief of 80 O.S.No. 26928/2011 mandatory injunction directing the members of the Managing Committee of the Bangalore-Club to restore Ex.P. 1 application/proposal of A.Chandrashekar for granting membership to the plaintiff in the Bangalore-Club under the same waiting list number and to consider it in accordance with rules and regulations of Bangalore-Club. In view of the above, I answer re-casted Issue No.2 in Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.4: In view of my reasons and findings on Issues 1 to 4, I pass the following:
ORDER Plaintiff's suit is decreed.
The action of defendants rejecting the proposal of A.Chandraashekar for accord of permanent membership to the plaintiff in the Bangalore-Club as indicated in communication dated: 6.12.2009 is declared as void and consequently it is set -aside. The General Committee members of the Bangalore-Club are 81 O.S.No. 26928/2011 directed to restore application/proposal of A. Chandrashekar for accord of permanent membership to plaintiff in the Bangalore-Club in waiting list No.2061 and to consider the same in the manner predicted by the Rules of the Bangalore-Club.
No order as to costs.
****** (Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of September 2021) (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 75) 82 O.S.No. 26928/2011 ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW1 Shabnam Khan PW2 Elijabath Premakumari
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Proposal form for lady membership-Rule
6.1(ii)
Ex.P.2 Receipt
Ex.P.3 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.4 Receipt
Ex.P.5 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.6 Receipt
Ex.P.7 Letter
Ex.P.8 Receipt
Ex.P.9 Letter
Ex.P. 10 Cheque
Ex.P. 11 Degree study certificate
Ex.P. 12 Notification
Ex.P. 13 Letter
Ex.P. 14 Letter
Ex.P. 15 Letter
Ex.P. 16 Certificate
Ex.P. 17 Bangalore club rules
Ex.P. 18 Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.
25007/2015
Ex.P. 19 Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.
83
O.S.No. 26928/2011
25007/2015
Ex.P. 20 Minutes of the 143rd annual general
Meeting
Ex.P. 21 Report of enquiry committee
Ex.P. 22 Annual report
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
DW1 Mr. Girish Punja DW2 Mr. Amarnath Kamath
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 Minutes of General committee meeting held on 04.12.2009 at 6.00pm Ex.D.2 to 7 Applications for permanent membership Ex.D.8 Minutes of General committee meeting held on 01.05.2009 at 6.00pm Ex.D.9 Minutes of General committee meeting held on 20.03.2009 at 5.00pm Ex.D.10 Minutes of General committee meeting held on 20.02.2020 at 5.30pm Ex.D.11 Minutes of General committee meeting held on 07.08.2009 at 6.00pm (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 75) 84 O.S.No. 26928/2011 85 O.S.No. 26928/2011 Judgment pronounced in the open Court(vide separate judgment) ORDER Plaintiff's suit is decreed.
The action of defendants rejecting the proposal of A.Chandraashekar for accord of permanent membership to the plaintiff in the Bangalore-Club as indicated in communication dated:
6.12.2009 is declared as void and consequently it is set -aside.
The General Committee members of the Bangalore-Club are directed to restore application/proposal of A. Chandrashekar for accord of permanent membership to plaintiff in the Bangalore-
Club in waiting list No.2061 and to consider the same in the manner predicted by the Rules of the Bangalore- Club.
No order as to costs.
LXXIV ACC&SJ, Bengaluru.
86 O.S.No. 26928/2011