Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) against an order dated 7 September 2013 passed by the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, which partly allowed a notice of motion and restrained MCA from acting upon its decision to expel the plaintiff, Ratnakar Shivram Shetty, for a period of five years during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff had filed a suit challenging a notice dated 3 June 2013 imposing a five-year ban from participating in MCA activities, claiming the decision was illegal and violative of natural justice. The trial court granted the injunction, finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff, and irreparable loss. The High Court, in its judgment dated 20/21 September 2013, upheld the trial court's order, noting that the decision to expel was taken without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard and without a proper inquiry, thus violating principles of natural justice. The court dismissed the appeal, directing the trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit. The judgment emphasizes that expulsion from membership requires adherence to natural justice and that the trial court's discretion in granting the injunction was not perverse or arbitrary.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Expulsion of Member - The trial court granted injunction restraining the association from expelling the plaintiff for five years, pending suit, on grounds of violation of natural justice and lack of proper inquiry. The High Court upheld the order, finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff, and irreparable loss. (Paras 3-10)
B) Societies Law - Expulsion of Member - Natural Justice - The decision to expel a member without giving an opportunity of being heard and without a proper inquiry is illegal and bad in law. The court held that the principles of natural justice must be followed before expelling a member from a society. (Paras 4-8)
C) Civil Procedure - Appeal from Order - Section 104 CPC - The appeal against the order granting temporary injunction was dismissed as the trial court's order was based on proper appreciation of facts and law. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting a temporary injunction restraining the Mumbai Cricket Association from expelling the plaintiff for five years, pending the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's order granting temporary injunction restraining the Mumbai Cricket Association from acting upon the decision to expel the plaintiff for five years during the pendency of the suit. The hearing of the suit was expedited.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Expulsion from membership
- Injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
Case Details
Appeal from Order (Stamp) No. 25497 of 2013 with CAAST/25580/2013
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav J. Mehta, Ms. Deepti B. Mistry i/by M/s. Vaishnav Mehta & Associates for the Appellant; Mr. E.P. Bharucha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Firoz Bharucha, Mr. Sachin Mandlik, Mr. Vishal Shriyan i/by Khaitan & Co. for respondent No.1; Mr. A.N. Narula for respondent No.19
Mumbai Cricket Association
Mr. Ratnakar Shivram Shetty and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit challenging expulsion from membership of a cricket association, and appeal against order granting temporary injunction.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff sought declaration that the notice of expulsion dated 3 June 2013 imposing a five-year ban was illegal and bad in law, and sought injunction restraining the association from acting upon it.
Filing Reason
The plaintiff was expelled from the Mumbai Cricket Association for five years without being given an opportunity to be heard and without a proper inquiry.
Previous Decisions
The trial court partly allowed the notice of motion and restrained the association from acting upon the expulsion decision during the pendency of the suit.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in granting a temporary injunction restraining the expulsion of the plaintiff pending suit.
Whether the decision to expel the plaintiff violated principles of natural justice.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the trial court erred in granting the injunction as the plaintiff had no prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in favor of the association.
Respondent argued that the expulsion was without notice and opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice, and that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
Ratio Decidendi
The decision to expel a member without following principles of natural justice, including giving an opportunity to be heard and conducting a proper inquiry, is illegal and cannot be sustained. The trial court's discretion in granting a temporary injunction was based on a proper appreciation of the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, and therefore not interfered with.
Judgment Excerpts
The decision to expel the plaintiff without giving an opportunity of being heard and without a proper inquiry is illegal and bad in law.
The trial court has rightly granted the injunction as there is a prima facie case, balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff, and irreparable loss would be caused.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, challenging the expulsion notice. The trial court granted an interim injunction on 7 September 2013. The defendant (Mumbai Cricket Association) appealed to the High Court against that order. The High Court heard the appeal on 20/21 September 2013 and dismissed it.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Section 104
