Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, a jockey with over 20 years of experience, filed a suit and notice of motion challenging the order of the Board of Appeal of the Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. that upheld his suspension for six months. The suspension arose from allegations that during Race No.230 on 15 March 2018, the plaintiff failed to allow his mount, Lord Commander—the favorite—to run on its own merits, finishing fourth. The horse was owned in part by the trainer (defendant no.2) and another owner who also owned the winning horse. The stewards of the club conducted an inquiry and, after hearing the plaintiff and reviewing evidence, concluded that the plaintiff did not follow the trainer's instructions, his riding efforts were deficient, and there were suspicious betting odds patterns. Consequently, the stewards suspended his license for twelve months. On appeal, the Board of Appeal reduced the suspension to six months (effective from 28 April 2018 to 27 October 2018) and kept a further six months as a suspended sentence if he reoffended within three years. The plaintiff challenged this order on the ground that it was unreasoned and violated principles of natural justice. He argued that domestic tribunals, especially when affecting livelihood, must give reasons for their decisions, relying on precedents such as Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 and Royal Western India Turf Club Limited v. Vinayak J. Gaekwad 2006 (5) Bom.C.R. 481. He also contended that the horse had a medical condition (EIPHS Grade II) and had been advised rest, which the trainer concealed, and that these factors were not properly considered. The defendants argued that the order contained reasons, natural justice was complied with, no mala fides were alleged, and the sole issue was whether the jockey prevented the horse from running on its merits. The matter was heard by Justice S.J. Kathawalla on 4 May 2019. The court's decision is not recorded in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Impugned Order dated 23rd April 2018 passed by the Board of Appeal of Defendant No.1, being unreasoned, should be stayed/set aside.
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (05) 14
Notice of Motion No.1705 of 2018 in Suit No.961 of 2018
Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate alongwith Rashmin Khandekar for Plaintiff; Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate alongwith Aditya Shiralkar, Vivek Shiralkar, Deepali Khare, Yashoda Desai for Defendant Nos.1 and 3; Naushad Engineer alongwith Areez Gazdar for Defendant No.2
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to suspension order of a jockey’s license by a Turf Club on grounds of unreasoned order and violation of natural justice.
Remedy Sought
Interim stay of the Impugned Order dated 23 April 2018 prohibiting the plaintiff from participating in races for six months.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff's license was suspended for allegedly not permitting his mount to run on its own merits; the order was unreasoned.
Previous Decisions
Stewards' Order dated 3 April 2018 suspended license for 12 months; Board of Appeal modified to 6 months suspension plus suspended sentence.
Issues
Whether the Impugned Order is unreasoned and thus violates principles of natural justice, warranting its stay/setting aside.
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff: The order lacks reasons; neither the Stewards nor the Board of Appeal recorded any findings on the plaintiff's explanation regarding the horse's health and riding instructions; the order does not clarify why his defense was rejected; an unreasoned order cannot be sustained, especially when it affects livelihood; reliance on Kranti Associates and other cases; the horse had EIPHS and was advised rest, which was not disclosed, and the trainer's inconsistent stance was ignored; the decision is arbitrary.
Defendants: The plaintiff made false statements; the horse's health condition was not severe and did not affect its running; the order is reasoned and passed in compliance with natural justice; the only issue was whether the jockey prevented the horse from running on its merits; inter se disputes among owners, trainer, and jockey are irrelevant; no mala fides alleged; the appeal body modified the punishment considering it was the first offence.
Judgment Excerpts
the Stewards did not accept the explanation tendered by him and held him liable for not permitting his mount Lord Commander to run on its own merits in Race 230.
the Board of Appeal deliberated the matter and applied their minds to the entire facts and circumstances. Whilst the Board concurred with the findings of the Stewards of the Club, keeping in mind that this was his first offence of this nature, the Board of Appeal unanimously decided to modify his punishment
anybody reading the Impugned Order is left guessing as to the reason that Defendant No.3 arrived at for the conclusion that it did.
there is absolutely no manner of knowing what evidence the Impugned Order in based on.
Procedural History
Following the race on 15 March 2018, the Stipendiary Stewards questioned the jockey. On 3 April 2018, the Stewards of the Club passed an order suspending the jockey's license for 12 months. The jockey appealed to the Board of Appeal, which on 23 April 2018 reduced the suspension to 6 months with a suspended sentence for three years. The jockey filed the present suit and notice of motion in the Bombay High Court seeking a stay of the Board's order. The matter was heard on 4 May 2019; the court's order is not recorded in the available text.
