STOCK MARKET UPDATE

Ticker

6/recent/ticker-posts

HC Reiterates: Managing Committee of clubs have the sufficient attitude to Initiate Disciplinary proceedings against their members

 Madras High Court - Cause List

A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice Rmt. Teekaa Raman Court was dealing with a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal wherein the petitioner alleged some irregularity in the decision taken by a club that was registered under the Companies Act, 2013. The court held that while prima facie there seemed to be no irregularity, the court could not interfere in the club activities and decisions as long as it acts within the powers defined in its bye-laws and internal regulations.

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner/plaintiff was a permanent member of the respondent Club, since 17.10.2016. The respondent Club was functioning to provide its members with social recreation like indoor games, health clubs, literary activities, bars, dining, and entertainment. The petitioner stood for election to the Managing Committee in September 2021 and raised various issues pertaining to the governance of the club, especially non-compliance with Section 105(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. The same issues were raised by various other members in the Annual General Body Meeting of the club.

The petitioner had sent a letter dated 29.12.2021 that the President's observation is contrary to the Articles of the Association to allow the proxies. The petitioner also pin-pointed the discrepancy in scrutinizing the proxy Register of the Club. Further, specific complaints between the petitioner/plaintiff and two members of the club viz., Mr. R.V.D. Rozario and Mr. P.D. Ganapathy, had resulted in the police complaint and it was alleged that based upon falsely motivated complaints from the very same persons, against whom the petitioner has complained, the Management Committee with malicious and vindictive attitude, has conspired to suspend the petitioner and planned to terminate the petitioner from the membership of the Club and issued show cause notice on 26.04.2022, under Clause 23 of the Bye-laws of the Club.

 In that show cause notice, the petitioner was accused that he is interfering with the ordinary day-to-day operation and management of the Club, harassment to Mr. Preetham Philip during his tenure as President for using the title as “Captain” despite charges against Mr. Preetham Philip supported by a strong letter by the Army Authorities and State Government. An interim reply was sent to the show cause notice on 27.04.2022.

 

When things are so, the petitioner also filed O.S.No.52 of 2022 before the Vacation Court and subsequently renumbered as O.S.No.68 of 2022 on the file of the Munsif Court, Nilgiris, to declare the show cause notice dated 26.04.2022 as null and void. After conducting the inquiry, the Management Committee issued the main suspension order and hence the appellant has filed the above O.S.No.65 of 2022 before the learned District Judge, Ooty, to declare the suspension order as null and void. In the pending suit, he sought interim relief in I.A.No.02 of 2020, which was dismissed by an order dated 31.10.2022. Aggrieved against the rejection of the temporary relief, the plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

Observations of the Court:

After going through the documents presented by the parties, the court found that prima facie there was no violation of the principles of natural justice, as alleged. In all, the action appeared to have been taken based on the show cause notice and other documents supplied to them.

 

The appellant/plaintiff was a member of the Club. The Bye-laws of the club was equally applicable to all including the appellant's membership. As per Clause 23 of the Bye-laws, a show cause notice had to be issued before taking any disciplinary action upon a member. In the instant case, one such show cause notice was issued to the appellant/plaintiff and a reply was received from the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent.

Further, the court acknowledged that after presenting the show cause notice and replies therefore, having found not satisfactory, an enquiry committee was constituted and enquiry was conducted in a fair manner. After that, a decision arrived therein. In the matters of this kind of voluntary association, like the defendant club and based upon the bye-laws therein, necessary action has been taken keeping in mind the public image of the Club as well as the internal management of the Club. Hence, the court held that a Civil Court should not act like an appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at a conclusion independently.

The court noted that such registered clubs are entitled under private law to take steps to maintain internal discipline and protect their fair image and status. Relying on the decisions in TP Daver v. Lodge Victoria (1964) 1 SCR 1; Lennox Attur Patrick O'Reilly v. Cyril Cuthbert Gittends, Privy Council Appeal No.96 of 1946 (14.07.1949); and R. Lakshmipathy v Madras Gymkhana Club, 1997(1) CTC 77 the court held that the managing committee of clubs have the sufficient attitude to initiate disciplinary proceedings against their members and that the standard for these proceedings is not the same as that applicable to proceedings before courts/in the judicial system. As long as the club/association acts within the powers defined in its bye-laws, Court will not interfere with the same.

 

In view of the settled position of law and also taking note of the fact that a fair procedure has been followed and after going through the documents stated supra, the court concluded that voluntary associations, cannot be put on par with the Court or tribunal when dealing with the disciplinary matters concerning the membership of the petitioner.

Decision of the Court:

The Court upheld the order of the district court and held that there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed. 

 

Case Title: Lieutenant Colonel vs M/s Ootacamund Club

Coram: Mr. Justice Rmt. Teekaa Raman

einpresswire

Case No.: CMA No.2518 of 2022 and CMP Nos.19599 & 19603 of 2022

 

Advocate for the Petitioner: Appellant-in-person (Sandeep Dewan)

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Mrs. K. Shiny

Read Judgment ;


 

 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free. 

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant. 

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our

journalism free from government and corporate pressure .


Post a Comment

0 Comments

Custom Real-Time Chart Widget

'; (function() { var dsq = document.createElement('script'); dsq.type = 'text/javascript'; dsq.async = true; dsq.src = '//' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js'; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq); })();

market stocks NSC