1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.231 of 2009 And Notice of Motion No.2121 of 2009 In Notice of Motion No.3550 of 2008 In Suit No.2916 of 2008 Ramesh Kewalramani Appellant Vs. Aakash Lavlesh Leisure Pvt.Ltd. & anr. Respondents With Civil Appeal No.250 of 2009 And Notice of Motion No.2118 of 2009 In Notice of Motion No.3551 of 2008 In Suit No.2917 of 2008 Amarjeet Singh Keer Appellant Vs. Aakash Lavlesh Leisure Pvt.Ltd. & anr. Respondents 2 With Civil Appeal No.252 of 2009 And Notice of Motion No.2117 of 2009 In Notice of Motion No.3552 of 2008 In Suit No.2918 of 2008 Digant Champaneri Appellant Vs. Aakash Lavlesh Leisure Pvt.Ltd. & anr. Respondents Mr.Sudhir K. Talsania, Senior Advocate with Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for appellant. Mr.D.D.Madon with Mr.Chetan Kapadia i/b. Lilani Shah & Co. for respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. January 07, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. These intra Court appeals arise from an interlocutory order passed by 3 the learned Single Judge on 6th April 2009 dismissing Notice of Motion No. 3550 of 2008 in Suit No.2916 of 2008, Notice of Motion No.3551 of 2008 in Suit No.2917 of 2008 and Notice of Motion No.3552 of 2008 in Suit No. 2918 of 2008. The plaintiffs’ prayer for stay to the order of termination of their club membership has been turned down by the impugned order. 3. Mr.Talsania, the learned Senior Counsel has taken us through the various documents he has relied upon as well as the reasoning set out in the impugned order. He has also relied upon the decision in the case of T.P. Daver Vs. Lodge Victoria No.363, S.C. Belgaum & ors. [AIR 1963 SC 1144] and more particularly the following observations of Their Lordships in para 9: “9. 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 4 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 justice as explained in the decisions cited supra.” It was submitted by Mr.Talsania that the impugned orders are not passed in good faith and they are in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the appellants have made out a prima facie case in support of their plea for stay to the order of termination of membership. 4. It is not disputed that at the initial stage when the disputes had come before this Court in an Appeal from Order, this Court had constituted an Enquiry Committee with a further direction that the said domestic tribunal shall submit its report within ten days after completing the enquiry. Consequently, fresh show cause notice came to be issued on 14/16th June 2008 to each of the plaintiffs. The enquiry proceedings were conducted in which they participated on 6th September 2008. The Presiding Officer Shri Rajeev Anand had also called upon each of the plaintiffs to record their statements in defence so as to allow them one more opportunity. Enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Committee and copies of the same were also made available to each of the plaintiffs on 6th September 2008. 5 The Board passed a resolution on 6th September 2008 and decided to terminate the membership of the plaintiffs. 5. A copy of Bye-laws and Conduct Rules of the Defendant – Club i.e. Juhu Club Millennium is placed on record. The Enquiry Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the member is bound by the Byelaws & Conduct Rules of the Juhu Club Millennium? 2. Whether the member has formed / joined Club Millennium Members Association? 3. Whether the member has indulged in malicious propaganda against the interests of the Club? 4. Whether the said member has failed to pay due subscription to the club from 1st January, 2005 onwards? 5. Whether the member has been found to be instigating other members of the Club not to pay the quarterly members subscription? 6. Whether the said member obstructed the club function on 6 9th March 2008? The issue nos.1 to 4 were answered in the affirmative and issue nos.5 and 6 in the negative. 6. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order noted that the expulsion from the membership of the Club was on the grounds viz. (a) that the activities of the plaintiffs are in conflict with the interest of the defendant-club and are detrimental to the defendant-club, (b) that the plaintiffs are in arrears of payment of subscription and dues since 1/1/2005 and (c) indulging in malicious propaganda against the defendant-club and its administration. The learned Single Judge also noted that the action of termination of membership was permissible under Rule 22 as well as Rules 29 and 30 of the Bye-laws and recorded a finding that there was no prima facie case made out to stay the order of termination more so when right from 1/3/2008 the membership facilities were not restored. The learned Single Judge also noted that there was no case of causing irreparable loss to any of the plaintiffs and the balance of convenience was not in their favour. 7. We have considered the enquiry proceedings, enquiry report and the 7 Bye-laws and we do not find any error in the reasoning set out by the learned Single Judge. Prima facie, there is no case made out to hold that the order of termination is in violation of the principles of natural justice or the order of termination has not been issued in good faith. 8. Hence these Appeals must fail at the threshold and they are dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of Appeals, Notice of Motion No.2121 of 2009, Notice of Motion No.2118 of 2009 and Notice of Motion No.2117 of 2009 do not survive and the same stand disposed. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)