Full Judgment Text
$~OS-19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 14.11.2018
+ CS(OS) 533/2018 & IA 14457/2018
PANDIT RESTAURANT (UPVAN) & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through Mr.Ashish Mohan, Mr.Chetan Rai
Wahi and Mr.Akshit Mago,
Advocates.
versus
HOTEL & RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN
INDIA (HRANI) & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through Mr.Sameer Parekh, Mr.Sumit Goel,
Ms.Sonal Gupta and Ms.Tanya
Chaudhary, Advs. for M/s Parekh &
Co.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral)
IA No.14457/2018
1. This application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking
ad-interim, ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants restraining the defendants from giving effect to the minutes of
meeting dated 14.07.2018 and subsequent letter dated 20.07.2018.
2. The present suit is filed seeking a decree of declaration declaring the
minutes of the meeting dated 14.07.2018 of defendant No.1 association and
the subsequent letter dated 20.07.2018 as illegal & null and void.
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 1 of 11
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.6 served as a
unanimously elected President of defendant No.1 association for the years
2009-2010, as Hony. Secretary for the years 2007 to 2008. He has also held
the post of Joint Secretary for the years 2005-2006.
4. The election for the years 2018-2020 were to be held in this year. On
15.05.2018, plaintiff No.6 issued a letter requesting that list of all eligible
voters may be circulated in time, so that the elections are held in free and
fair manner. This request was repeated again on 21.05.2018 and 22.05.2018.
On 02.06.2018, the then President of defendant No.1 association served a
show cause notice on plaintiff No.6. On 14.06.2018 plaintiff No.6 gave a
detailed reply. On 20.07.2018, a communication was sent to the plaintiffs
terminating the plaintiffs’ membership of defendant No.1 association.
Hence, the present suit has been filed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 02.06.2018 would show that
allegations are made against plaintiff No.6 with regard to his conduct before
a former returning officer in last election and other occasions. The relevant
part of the show cause notice reads as follows:
You’r deliberately maligned a former Returning Officer with the view
to obstruct election-
“1. It is very clear that neither do you command any support over
the members, nor have you been interested in meaningfully
contributing to the working of the Association or participating in
elections. Your sole interest seems to be in preventing the elections
from being held in a free and fair manner by making false allegations
towards neutral returning officers who are appointed to conduct
elections.
2. In this regard, we would wish to mention, that the returning
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 2 of 11
officer on 21 July 2016 had written to you seeking a clarification
regarding the spelling of your name [ANNEXURE I]. In the said letter
the returning officer had mentioned that your name in the nomination
form is spelt as "Vijay Pande" whereas as in the copy of the records
with the Association, your name is spelt as ''Vijai Kumar Pande". It
was an innocuous query. Furthermore, the clarification was a genuine
one and the returning officer had merely asked you to send supporting
documents pertaining to your real name and identity. Clearly, there
was prima facie case that you were using dual/false identity as the
records did not match with your nomination form. It seems that you
got alarmed that your unethical and illegal practice of using two
names had been brought to light by a returning officer who had very
carefully scrutinised the records. Instead of giving the clarification, as
a defence mechanism, you wanted to put a lid on this controversy that
highlighted your perversity and illegality.
3. Instead of clarifying on the above query, you made derogatory
and personal remarks against a neutral returning officer and refused to
answer the query on merits. You chose to malign the returning officer
and attribute motives. The returning officer was greatly pained by this
conduct. The returning officer, by an email on 12 August 2016,
[ANNEXURE 2] clarified that after the clarifications are received, a
balanced view is always taken on factual and legal position and
preferably always in favour of the member, to provide an opportunity
to the member to serve the Association in the best possible manner.
4. The returning officer also clarified that besides you, there were
other members as well, from whom clarifications regarding change of
name or variation of name was sought and all of them had replied
within time-limit. Only you failed to do so. The returning officer had
to single out that only your acts were obstructing the election process
as you were refusing to answer legitimate queries. When every other
member had answered the query, there was no reason for you to not
answer the same, within the time, limit. All members are equal but
you wanted special treatment in violation of the rules and regulations
of the Association.
5. The returning officer was so shocked by your conduct that the
returning officer actually had to remind you that whilst it is expected
of you to set an example for the others to follow, given that you are a
senior member, in your inability to even submit a reply within the
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 3 of 11
stipulated time period, you showed gross indiscipline and contempt. A
member of this Association being reprimanded by an independent and
neutral person; has shocked all of us. You have painted a very grim
and nasty picture of this Association in front of an outsider and neutral
person. You have also painted a picture before a neutral outsider that
this Association permits indiscipline and derogatory conduct from, its
members. We are deeply disappointed because of your acts. It is clear
that you .have no regard for a neutral and fair election process and you
only raise objections that are aimed at stultifying the election process.
You do not meaningfully want to participate nor contribute and yet
you make baseless allegations that are defamatory, libellous,
scandalous, unworthy of a member of this Association.
Brazen violation of Rules in submitting nomination papers
6. Furthermore, in the email dated 12 August 2016, the returning
officer also brought to your notice that your conduct in every election
process has been equally appalling. The returning officer had to
remind you that even in an earlier election, your nomination paper was
received after fixed date and time limit, for receiving nominations. It
seems, from the language of the returning officer, that even a neutral
person like the returning officer, thought that you have no regard for
the rules. The returning officer had to admonish you that you ought to
realise that the returning officer is bound by rules and has to take
decisions in a time bound manner. We are indeed shocked and pained
to, note that you had to be reprimanded by an outsider and you had to
be reminded of the rules and regulations as you were openly flouting
them. You are merely interested in creating an ugly scene every time
the elections are held. Either you raise perfunctory issues to stall
elections or refuse to answer queries or fail to abide by time limits or
do something else that is aimed at frustrating the election process.
7. Your conduct shows that you have always wanted to obstruct
the process, of elections. Your conduct further shows that you have
always put a spanner in the works of the returning officer. Your
conduct also shows that you have no regard for the constitution of the
Association. Your conduct also shows that you submit nomination
papers after fixed date and time limit which is not permissible under
rules. Your conduct also shows that instead of explaining legitimate
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 4 of 11
doubts that are raised about your identity, you refuse to answer these
queries. Your conduct further shows that you are not disciplined. Your
conduct also shows that you're not interested in free and fair elections.
8. The association' will remind you that the returning officer is
neither a member of the managing committee nor an employee of the
Association. Therefore, to attribute motives to the returning officer, is
gross disregard towards the process of free and fair elections. It seems
that you do not intend to let the election process go on. It is very clear
that you want to browbeat an independent, reputed, neutral person
who is appointed to conduct elections.
9. Through these acts, you have caused deep distress to the
members of the. Association and tried to create a crisis by affecting
the process of free and fair elections. Such acts constitute gross
prejudice that you have caused to the Association.
.....
11. In the report of &e returning officer dated. 14 September 2016
[ANNEXURE 3], it is very clear that you made undesirable and the
derogatory remarks against the returning officer at the annual general
meeting without even caring to ascertain the facts. Your conduct has
completely destroyed the dignity of the Association; it destroyed the
decorum of the meeting, and was libellous and defamatory towards
the returning officer as well as towards the association and its
members.
12. Your conduct at the AGM towards the returning officer, who is
a neutral third party and has nothing to do with the members except
for being engaged for purposes of conducting free and fair elections,
shows that you are totally uninterested in the process of free and fair
elections. It is expected that every member of the Association will
make statements after verifying facts. This Association does not
believe in the policy of 'shoot and scoot'. This Association also does
not engage' in casual defamation and does not expect that its members
will engage in such casual defamation. Yet, what you have done is
exactly that. It is clear that you, besides breaking the decorum of the
meeting, you said things that were untrue and you did so knowing
very well that you had not ascertained the facts. Through these acts
you have caused great prejudice to this Association.
.......”
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 5 of 11
7. On 14.06.2018 plaintiff No.1 sent a reply, which reads as follows:
“Dt. 14.6.2018
To,
Dear Shri Sanjay Sood,
President,
H.R.A.N.I.
406/75-76, Manisha Building,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
Sir,
......
A person who had been so active in UPHRA/HRANI/ FHRAI
since last 30 years and held vital posts of President/Secretary and filed
his nomination on the scheduled date, although his nomination
remained in transit between Post Office and HRANI office for several
days and because of which his nomination came to be cancelled on
the ground that It came late from the post office, although a copy of
the same had been sent through e-mail also. All this amply
demonstrates a deep conspiracy. It is pertinent to note that it is a
settled law that date of posting a mail is deemed to be the date of
receipt by the receiver.
Turning of a minor dispute into a big war in the name of Vijai
Pande, vijay Kumar Pande, Vijay Pande in the elections of the next
year (2016-18) whose father's name is same and who had been
President and Hony. Secretary of the organization for upto 2 years and
whose name had been written on board of Presidents, is nothing but a
pre-planned conspiracy. Sir, I want to bring to your notice that office
bearers who are representative of the people, are always
st
addressed/referred to by their 1 name or sirname and as the persons
becomes older, though his name becomes smaller but his respect
grows. For example, Gandhi Ji, Atal Ji, Modi Ji etc. There is never
any ill-will or ill-motive behind such things. The most surprising
aspect is that elections on this Issue were held in July, 2016 and this
issue was again raised in June, 2018 although process for next
elections are yet to start (2018-20) and now you have been again
raising it after 2 years. Although position in this regard has already
been clarified. I had sought a list of the Members of the organization
and names of the Authorized signatories from the previous President
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 6 of 11
at the time of elections. But they were not provided and despite that
97 votes were received. Doesn't it indicate that members have faith on
me and on our working system? Even if a member loses in election, it
doesn't mean that he has lost his rights in the organization.
st
Language of your letter dated 31 May, 2018 towards our Ex-
President /Hony. Secretary is not only degrading but is also
unparliamentarily and defamatory. It appears that you have neither
read the proforma of that letter nor this letter has been got approved
from the working committee of HRANL.
I am hope and request from you in my capacity as a Senior
Member and Ex-President that you will uphold and keep alive the
dignity of our organization like all of us because you have worked
with me for many years. Tenure and Reputation of a President is
always taken to be a reputation of organization and each irregularity/
mistake/shortcomings during his tenure are presumed to be his
personal consents. I am sure, after holding talks with you, that you
will consider these issues.
......
Please do place my this letter in the next annual general
meeting of the HRANI and in case the organization decides that my
acts are hurting values of organization, then please treat my this letter
as my resignation and also please treat it as termination of
membership of all organizations.
I will always remember mutual trust and warmth of members
and their family as my golden period during my tenure in
UPHRA/HRANI/FHRAI and not the controversies and disputes.
I again reiterate that organization is the topmost and not me or
you.
With regards,
Yours
Sd/- Vijay Pandey”
8. On 20.07.2018, the following communication was sent to the
plaintiffs:
“July 20, 2018:
Pandit Restaurant(Upvan)
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 7 of 11
Near Murry Co; Katahari Bagh Cantt.,
Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh- 208004
Membership No.1768
Pursuant to the Meeting of Managing Committee of HRANI held on
July 14, 2018 at 12:30 hrs at Park Plaza, Ludhiana, I would like to
convey you that the following resolution has been unanimously
passed by the Committee:
“Resolved that in terms of the provision of Article 14(g) in the
AOA of Association of the Company, the Managing Committee of
HRANI hereby unanimously consents to and approves the
termination of membership of four units i.e. PANDIT
RESTAURANT(UPVAN), Near Murry Co., Katahari Bagh
Cantt., Kanpur; ORIENT HOTEL, 127, The Mall, Cantt., Kanpur,
PANDIT RESTAURANT, Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur and Hotel
Pandit, 49/7, General Ganj, Kanpur. All the units cease as
Member of HRANI with immediate effect.
Further resolved that Mr.Vijay Pande shall not be entitled for
nomination for and on behalf of any Hotel/Restaurant for
representation in HRANI.”
9. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that firstly these allegations are
vague and frivolous and cannot be a ground to terminate the membership of
the plaintiffs. Subsequently, reliance is placed on clause 14 of the
Memorandum and Article of Association to contend that no such power is
given to the association to terminate the membership of the plaintiffs. It is
pointed out that clause 14(g) of the Article of Association provides that in
the event of any member found acting prejudicial to the interest of the
Association and or working against the interest of the Association, he shall
be liable to be terminated and ceased as member of the Association. It is
pointed out that there is no finding recorded by the Association to show that
plaintiffs were acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest to the
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 8 of 11
Association.
10. The learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 has denied the said
contention of the plaintiffs. He has pointed out that plaintiff No.6 has been
creating nuisance in each of the elections held earlier in 2014 and again in
2016. He has misbehaved with the returning officer, who is a neutral third
party and caused harm to the reputation of defendant No.1 association. It is
also pointed out that returning officer for the year 2014-2016 clearly referred
to the said conduct of plaintiff No.6. Further other instances of alleged
nuisance being created by plaintiff No.6 has been adhered to.
11. He has further pleaded that the next election to defendant No.1
association will take place in 2020 and no prejudice is caused to plaintiff
No.6 and hence there is no occasion for this court to pass any interim
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
12. A perusal of the allegations made by defendant No.1 association
shows that in the particular facts and circumstances, the same can be termed
as grave. The issues raised may require further investigation. In any case, in
my opinion, this is not a fit case to grant any interim order in favour of the
plaintiffs.
13. I may note that the injunction order that is now sought in the present
application if granted would actually tantamount to allowing the Suit itself.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of the Writ
Petitioner in the case of Bank of Maharasthra versus Race Shipping &
Transport Co.Pvt.Ltd. and Another, ( 1995) 3 SCC 257 in para11 held as
follows:-
“Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of
granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 9 of 11
sought in the petition for no better reason than that a prima facie
case has been made out, without being concerned about the
balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other
considerations.”
14. Reference may also be had to the judgment of this court in the case of
Deepak R.Mehtra & Ors. versus National Sports Club of India,
MANU/DE/1686/2009. This Court noted the legal position pertaining to
Management of Clubs. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads as under:-
“11.The Apex Court in T.P.Daver v.Lodge Victoria
MANU/SC/0018/1962: AIR 1963 SC 1144 held that
jurisdiction of a civil court in such matters is rather limited; it
cannot obviously sit as a court of appeal from decisions of such
body; it can set aside the order of such a body, if the body acts
without jurisdiction or does not act in good faith or acts in
violation of principles of natural justice. The Apex Court again
in B.C.C.I.v.Netaji Cricket Club MANU/SC/0019/2005: AIR
2005 SC 592, in para 82 of the judgment held that an
association or a club which has framed its rules are bound
thereby. The strict implementation of such rules is imperative.
Necessarily, the office bearer in terms of the Memorandum and
Articles of Association must not only act within the four corners
thereof but exercise their respective powers in an honest and
fair manner. In Kalyan Kumar Dutta Gupta v. B.M.Verma
MANU/WB/0024/1995: AIR 1995 Cal.140(DB), the civil court
was held to have jurisdiction where allegation was that the club
had followed a procedure not warranted by the Rules of the
Club.”
15. In my view prima facie plaintiff has not been able to show that
defendant No.1 has no jurisdiction or has not acted in good faith or has
violated any of the principles of natural justice.
16. In view of the above, in my opinion, the plaintiffs have not been able
to make a prima facie case. Balance of convenience is also not in favour of
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 10 of 11
the plaintiffs. I see no reason to grant any interim injunction in favour of the
plaintiffs as sought in the present application. The application is accordingly
dismissed.
IA No.15482/2018
17. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
CS(OS) 533/2018
18. List before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings and
admission-denial of documents on 18.12.2018.
JAYANT NATH, J.
NOVEMBER 14, 2018/v
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 11 of 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 14.11.2018
+ CS(OS) 533/2018 & IA 14457/2018
PANDIT RESTAURANT (UPVAN) & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through Mr.Ashish Mohan, Mr.Chetan Rai
Wahi and Mr.Akshit Mago,
Advocates.
versus
HOTEL & RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN
INDIA (HRANI) & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through Mr.Sameer Parekh, Mr.Sumit Goel,
Ms.Sonal Gupta and Ms.Tanya
Chaudhary, Advs. for M/s Parekh &
Co.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral)
IA No.14457/2018
1. This application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking
ad-interim, ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants restraining the defendants from giving effect to the minutes of
meeting dated 14.07.2018 and subsequent letter dated 20.07.2018.
2. The present suit is filed seeking a decree of declaration declaring the
minutes of the meeting dated 14.07.2018 of defendant No.1 association and
the subsequent letter dated 20.07.2018 as illegal & null and void.
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 1 of 11
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.6 served as a
unanimously elected President of defendant No.1 association for the years
2009-2010, as Hony. Secretary for the years 2007 to 2008. He has also held
the post of Joint Secretary for the years 2005-2006.
4. The election for the years 2018-2020 were to be held in this year. On
15.05.2018, plaintiff No.6 issued a letter requesting that list of all eligible
voters may be circulated in time, so that the elections are held in free and
fair manner. This request was repeated again on 21.05.2018 and 22.05.2018.
On 02.06.2018, the then President of defendant No.1 association served a
show cause notice on plaintiff No.6. On 14.06.2018 plaintiff No.6 gave a
detailed reply. On 20.07.2018, a communication was sent to the plaintiffs
terminating the plaintiffs’ membership of defendant No.1 association.
Hence, the present suit has been filed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 02.06.2018 would show that
allegations are made against plaintiff No.6 with regard to his conduct before
a former returning officer in last election and other occasions. The relevant
part of the show cause notice reads as follows:
You’r deliberately maligned a former Returning Officer with the view
to obstruct election-
“1. It is very clear that neither do you command any support over
the members, nor have you been interested in meaningfully
contributing to the working of the Association or participating in
elections. Your sole interest seems to be in preventing the elections
from being held in a free and fair manner by making false allegations
towards neutral returning officers who are appointed to conduct
elections.
2. In this regard, we would wish to mention, that the returning
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 2 of 11
officer on 21 July 2016 had written to you seeking a clarification
regarding the spelling of your name [ANNEXURE I]. In the said letter
the returning officer had mentioned that your name in the nomination
form is spelt as "Vijay Pande" whereas as in the copy of the records
with the Association, your name is spelt as ''Vijai Kumar Pande". It
was an innocuous query. Furthermore, the clarification was a genuine
one and the returning officer had merely asked you to send supporting
documents pertaining to your real name and identity. Clearly, there
was prima facie case that you were using dual/false identity as the
records did not match with your nomination form. It seems that you
got alarmed that your unethical and illegal practice of using two
names had been brought to light by a returning officer who had very
carefully scrutinised the records. Instead of giving the clarification, as
a defence mechanism, you wanted to put a lid on this controversy that
highlighted your perversity and illegality.
3. Instead of clarifying on the above query, you made derogatory
and personal remarks against a neutral returning officer and refused to
answer the query on merits. You chose to malign the returning officer
and attribute motives. The returning officer was greatly pained by this
conduct. The returning officer, by an email on 12 August 2016,
[ANNEXURE 2] clarified that after the clarifications are received, a
balanced view is always taken on factual and legal position and
preferably always in favour of the member, to provide an opportunity
to the member to serve the Association in the best possible manner.
4. The returning officer also clarified that besides you, there were
other members as well, from whom clarifications regarding change of
name or variation of name was sought and all of them had replied
within time-limit. Only you failed to do so. The returning officer had
to single out that only your acts were obstructing the election process
as you were refusing to answer legitimate queries. When every other
member had answered the query, there was no reason for you to not
answer the same, within the time, limit. All members are equal but
you wanted special treatment in violation of the rules and regulations
of the Association.
5. The returning officer was so shocked by your conduct that the
returning officer actually had to remind you that whilst it is expected
of you to set an example for the others to follow, given that you are a
senior member, in your inability to even submit a reply within the
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 3 of 11
stipulated time period, you showed gross indiscipline and contempt. A
member of this Association being reprimanded by an independent and
neutral person; has shocked all of us. You have painted a very grim
and nasty picture of this Association in front of an outsider and neutral
person. You have also painted a picture before a neutral outsider that
this Association permits indiscipline and derogatory conduct from, its
members. We are deeply disappointed because of your acts. It is clear
that you .have no regard for a neutral and fair election process and you
only raise objections that are aimed at stultifying the election process.
You do not meaningfully want to participate nor contribute and yet
you make baseless allegations that are defamatory, libellous,
scandalous, unworthy of a member of this Association.
Brazen violation of Rules in submitting nomination papers
6. Furthermore, in the email dated 12 August 2016, the returning
officer also brought to your notice that your conduct in every election
process has been equally appalling. The returning officer had to
remind you that even in an earlier election, your nomination paper was
received after fixed date and time limit, for receiving nominations. It
seems, from the language of the returning officer, that even a neutral
person like the returning officer, thought that you have no regard for
the rules. The returning officer had to admonish you that you ought to
realise that the returning officer is bound by rules and has to take
decisions in a time bound manner. We are indeed shocked and pained
to, note that you had to be reprimanded by an outsider and you had to
be reminded of the rules and regulations as you were openly flouting
them. You are merely interested in creating an ugly scene every time
the elections are held. Either you raise perfunctory issues to stall
elections or refuse to answer queries or fail to abide by time limits or
do something else that is aimed at frustrating the election process.
7. Your conduct shows that you have always wanted to obstruct
the process, of elections. Your conduct further shows that you have
always put a spanner in the works of the returning officer. Your
conduct also shows that you have no regard for the constitution of the
Association. Your conduct also shows that you submit nomination
papers after fixed date and time limit which is not permissible under
rules. Your conduct also shows that instead of explaining legitimate
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 4 of 11
doubts that are raised about your identity, you refuse to answer these
queries. Your conduct further shows that you are not disciplined. Your
conduct also shows that you're not interested in free and fair elections.
8. The association' will remind you that the returning officer is
neither a member of the managing committee nor an employee of the
Association. Therefore, to attribute motives to the returning officer, is
gross disregard towards the process of free and fair elections. It seems
that you do not intend to let the election process go on. It is very clear
that you want to browbeat an independent, reputed, neutral person
who is appointed to conduct elections.
9. Through these acts, you have caused deep distress to the
members of the. Association and tried to create a crisis by affecting
the process of free and fair elections. Such acts constitute gross
prejudice that you have caused to the Association.
.....
11. In the report of &e returning officer dated. 14 September 2016
[ANNEXURE 3], it is very clear that you made undesirable and the
derogatory remarks against the returning officer at the annual general
meeting without even caring to ascertain the facts. Your conduct has
completely destroyed the dignity of the Association; it destroyed the
decorum of the meeting, and was libellous and defamatory towards
the returning officer as well as towards the association and its
members.
12. Your conduct at the AGM towards the returning officer, who is
a neutral third party and has nothing to do with the members except
for being engaged for purposes of conducting free and fair elections,
shows that you are totally uninterested in the process of free and fair
elections. It is expected that every member of the Association will
make statements after verifying facts. This Association does not
believe in the policy of 'shoot and scoot'. This Association also does
not engage' in casual defamation and does not expect that its members
will engage in such casual defamation. Yet, what you have done is
exactly that. It is clear that you, besides breaking the decorum of the
meeting, you said things that were untrue and you did so knowing
very well that you had not ascertained the facts. Through these acts
you have caused great prejudice to this Association.
.......”
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 5 of 11
7. On 14.06.2018 plaintiff No.1 sent a reply, which reads as follows:
“Dt. 14.6.2018
To,
Dear Shri Sanjay Sood,
President,
H.R.A.N.I.
406/75-76, Manisha Building,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
Sir,
......
A person who had been so active in UPHRA/HRANI/ FHRAI
since last 30 years and held vital posts of President/Secretary and filed
his nomination on the scheduled date, although his nomination
remained in transit between Post Office and HRANI office for several
days and because of which his nomination came to be cancelled on
the ground that It came late from the post office, although a copy of
the same had been sent through e-mail also. All this amply
demonstrates a deep conspiracy. It is pertinent to note that it is a
settled law that date of posting a mail is deemed to be the date of
receipt by the receiver.
Turning of a minor dispute into a big war in the name of Vijai
Pande, vijay Kumar Pande, Vijay Pande in the elections of the next
year (2016-18) whose father's name is same and who had been
President and Hony. Secretary of the organization for upto 2 years and
whose name had been written on board of Presidents, is nothing but a
pre-planned conspiracy. Sir, I want to bring to your notice that office
bearers who are representative of the people, are always
st
addressed/referred to by their 1 name or sirname and as the persons
becomes older, though his name becomes smaller but his respect
grows. For example, Gandhi Ji, Atal Ji, Modi Ji etc. There is never
any ill-will or ill-motive behind such things. The most surprising
aspect is that elections on this Issue were held in July, 2016 and this
issue was again raised in June, 2018 although process for next
elections are yet to start (2018-20) and now you have been again
raising it after 2 years. Although position in this regard has already
been clarified. I had sought a list of the Members of the organization
and names of the Authorized signatories from the previous President
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 6 of 11
at the time of elections. But they were not provided and despite that
97 votes were received. Doesn't it indicate that members have faith on
me and on our working system? Even if a member loses in election, it
doesn't mean that he has lost his rights in the organization.
st
Language of your letter dated 31 May, 2018 towards our Ex-
President /Hony. Secretary is not only degrading but is also
unparliamentarily and defamatory. It appears that you have neither
read the proforma of that letter nor this letter has been got approved
from the working committee of HRANL.
I am hope and request from you in my capacity as a Senior
Member and Ex-President that you will uphold and keep alive the
dignity of our organization like all of us because you have worked
with me for many years. Tenure and Reputation of a President is
always taken to be a reputation of organization and each irregularity/
mistake/shortcomings during his tenure are presumed to be his
personal consents. I am sure, after holding talks with you, that you
will consider these issues.
......
Please do place my this letter in the next annual general
meeting of the HRANI and in case the organization decides that my
acts are hurting values of organization, then please treat my this letter
as my resignation and also please treat it as termination of
membership of all organizations.
I will always remember mutual trust and warmth of members
and their family as my golden period during my tenure in
UPHRA/HRANI/FHRAI and not the controversies and disputes.
I again reiterate that organization is the topmost and not me or
you.
With regards,
Yours
Sd/- Vijay Pandey”
8. On 20.07.2018, the following communication was sent to the
plaintiffs:
“July 20, 2018:
Pandit Restaurant(Upvan)
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 7 of 11
Near Murry Co; Katahari Bagh Cantt.,
Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh- 208004
Membership No.1768
Pursuant to the Meeting of Managing Committee of HRANI held on
July 14, 2018 at 12:30 hrs at Park Plaza, Ludhiana, I would like to
convey you that the following resolution has been unanimously
passed by the Committee:
“Resolved that in terms of the provision of Article 14(g) in the
AOA of Association of the Company, the Managing Committee of
HRANI hereby unanimously consents to and approves the
termination of membership of four units i.e. PANDIT
RESTAURANT(UPVAN), Near Murry Co., Katahari Bagh
Cantt., Kanpur; ORIENT HOTEL, 127, The Mall, Cantt., Kanpur,
PANDIT RESTAURANT, Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur and Hotel
Pandit, 49/7, General Ganj, Kanpur. All the units cease as
Member of HRANI with immediate effect.
Further resolved that Mr.Vijay Pande shall not be entitled for
nomination for and on behalf of any Hotel/Restaurant for
representation in HRANI.”
9. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that firstly these allegations are
vague and frivolous and cannot be a ground to terminate the membership of
the plaintiffs. Subsequently, reliance is placed on clause 14 of the
Memorandum and Article of Association to contend that no such power is
given to the association to terminate the membership of the plaintiffs. It is
pointed out that clause 14(g) of the Article of Association provides that in
the event of any member found acting prejudicial to the interest of the
Association and or working against the interest of the Association, he shall
be liable to be terminated and ceased as member of the Association. It is
pointed out that there is no finding recorded by the Association to show that
plaintiffs were acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest to the
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 8 of 11
Association.
10. The learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 has denied the said
contention of the plaintiffs. He has pointed out that plaintiff No.6 has been
creating nuisance in each of the elections held earlier in 2014 and again in
2016. He has misbehaved with the returning officer, who is a neutral third
party and caused harm to the reputation of defendant No.1 association. It is
also pointed out that returning officer for the year 2014-2016 clearly referred
to the said conduct of plaintiff No.6. Further other instances of alleged
nuisance being created by plaintiff No.6 has been adhered to.
11. He has further pleaded that the next election to defendant No.1
association will take place in 2020 and no prejudice is caused to plaintiff
No.6 and hence there is no occasion for this court to pass any interim
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
12. A perusal of the allegations made by defendant No.1 association
shows that in the particular facts and circumstances, the same can be termed
as grave. The issues raised may require further investigation. In any case, in
my opinion, this is not a fit case to grant any interim order in favour of the
plaintiffs.
13. I may note that the injunction order that is now sought in the present
application if granted would actually tantamount to allowing the Suit itself.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of the Writ
Petitioner in the case of Bank of Maharasthra versus Race Shipping &
Transport Co.Pvt.Ltd. and Another, ( 1995) 3 SCC 257 in para11 held as
follows:-
“Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of
granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 9 of 11
sought in the petition for no better reason than that a prima facie
case has been made out, without being concerned about the
balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other
considerations.”
14. Reference may also be had to the judgment of this court in the case of
Deepak R.Mehtra & Ors. versus National Sports Club of India,
MANU/DE/1686/2009. This Court noted the legal position pertaining to
Management of Clubs. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads as under:-
“11.The Apex Court in T.P.Daver v.Lodge Victoria
MANU/SC/0018/1962: AIR 1963 SC 1144 held that
jurisdiction of a civil court in such matters is rather limited; it
cannot obviously sit as a court of appeal from decisions of such
body; it can set aside the order of such a body, if the body acts
without jurisdiction or does not act in good faith or acts in
violation of principles of natural justice. The Apex Court again
in B.C.C.I.v.Netaji Cricket Club MANU/SC/0019/2005: AIR
2005 SC 592, in para 82 of the judgment held that an
association or a club which has framed its rules are bound
thereby. The strict implementation of such rules is imperative.
Necessarily, the office bearer in terms of the Memorandum and
Articles of Association must not only act within the four corners
thereof but exercise their respective powers in an honest and
fair manner. In Kalyan Kumar Dutta Gupta v. B.M.Verma
MANU/WB/0024/1995: AIR 1995 Cal.140(DB), the civil court
was held to have jurisdiction where allegation was that the club
had followed a procedure not warranted by the Rules of the
Club.”
15. In my view prima facie plaintiff has not been able to show that
defendant No.1 has no jurisdiction or has not acted in good faith or has
violated any of the principles of natural justice.
16. In view of the above, in my opinion, the plaintiffs have not been able
to make a prima facie case. Balance of convenience is also not in favour of
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 10 of 11
the plaintiffs. I see no reason to grant any interim injunction in favour of the
plaintiffs as sought in the present application. The application is accordingly
dismissed.
IA No.15482/2018
17. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
CS(OS) 533/2018
18. List before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings and
admission-denial of documents on 18.12.2018.
JAYANT NATH, J.
NOVEMBER 14, 2018/v
CS(OS) 533/2018 Page 11 of 11