Safiya Malik

The High Court at Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay held that interim relief was unwarranted in a challenge to a suspension order issued by a private club. The court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge who had refused the prayer for ad-interim injunction. Stating that the internal dispute should be addressed within the framework of the club’s rules, the Bench recorded that the ongoing process provided sufficient opportunity for the suspended member to defend his case. The court stated that the matter should proceed before the designated Special Board under Rule 22 of the Club’s Revised 2023 Rules, and no prima facie case for intervention had been made out at the appellate stage. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to expedite proceedings before the Single Judge.

The proceedings arose from a civil appeal against an order dated March 20, 2025, passed by a learned Single Judge. The appellant challenged a suspension notice issued on January 30, 2025, and a subsequent notice dated February 6, 2025, issued by a private social club. The appellant had been a member of the club for thirty years and had also served as its President in the past. The basis of the dispute lay in a WhatsApp message sent by the appellant on September 23, 2024, to other members of the club. In the message, the appellant raised several concerns about alleged financial irregularities, including expenditures exceeding INR 8.25 crores, reduction in investments, and discrepancies in accounts.

Also Read: Summoning Defence Counsel Threatens Justice System | Subjecting Lawyers To Police Beck And Call Prima Facie Appears Completely Untenable : Supreme Court

Prior to circulating this message, the appellant had submitted a letter dated September 20, 2024, to the club’s Secretary, raising formal questions for the upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM) scheduled on September 28, 2024. The AGM was held as scheduled. The appellant contended that his queries were discussed at the AGM and no further action was warranted.

Following the circulation of the message, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Club initiated communication with the appellant, requesting confirmation of authorship. The appellant initially questioned the authority of the CEO to raise such queries. Eventually, the appellant was summoned to appear before the Members Relationship Committee (MRC) on October 28, 2024, but he was unable to attend. A meeting subsequently took place on November 8, 2024, which was videographed. Although a copy of the video was supplied to the appellant, he contended that the official minutes of the meeting were never shared, which in his view amounted to procedural deficiency.

The appellant also appeared before the Executive Committee on January 27, 2025. Following this, the club suspended him under Rule 22(b)(ii) and (iii) of its Revised 2023 Rules. The February 6, 2025 notice called upon the appellant to nominate members to represent him before a Special Board that would determine whether expulsion was warranted.

Challenging these actions, the appellant filed a suit and sought interim injunction to prevent the Club from giving effect to the notices. The learned Single Judge refused to grant ad-interim protection, prompting the present appeal.

Senior Advocate Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, appearing for the appellant, argued that the suspension was illegal and in violation of natural justice. He stated that no show-cause notice was served, and the meeting minutes were withheld. Referring to the Club’s Rule 46, Mr. Banerjee contended that the accounts, once approved at the AGM, became conclusive except for errors detected within three months. The appellant’s WhatsApp message, he argued, was in good faith.

Mr. Banerjee also referred to Rule 51 regarding the mandatory preparation and inspection of minutes of meetings, and Rule 60(ii), which confers proprietary interest upon permanent members in case of liquidation. He contended that the appellant’s suspension affected such interests.

Citing multiple judicial precedents including T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363 SC Belgaum, UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India, Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi), State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, and Suresh G. Seth v. National Sports Club of India, counsel stated that natural justice required an express show-cause notice and fair opportunity to defend against civil consequences like suspension.

Senior Advocate Mr. Anindya Kr. Mitra, appearing for the club, argued that the appellant acted with mala fide intent. He had already raised queries via letter dated September 20, 2024, making the WhatsApp message unnecessary and inflammatory. The letter was part of the AGM proceedings and queries were addressed therein. Mr. Mitra asserted that the WhatsApp message was intended to discredit the Executive Committee members and that the appellant failed to substantiate his allegations during repeated meetings.

The MRC held three meetings to obtain confirmation and supporting evidence from the appellant, who ultimately confirmed authorship but declined to provide the basis for his allegations. Mr. Mitra also stated that the appellant consented to video recording of the MRC meeting on November 8, 2024, and was provided an unedited copy. The Club did not prepare formal minutes, considering the video as an adequate substitute.

The Executive Committee subsequently invoked Rule 22 to suspend the appellant. The club’s counsel stressed that the procedure followed was in line with internal rules, and the Special Board would provide a further opportunity to be heard, rendering interim court intervention unnecessary.

The Division Bench recorded its prima facie view that there was no valid reason for the appellant to circulate the WhatsApp message after already raising concerns via letter. "Our attention was not drawn to this letter by the plaintiff. In our opinion, this letter is very material." The court noted that the September 20, 2024 letter could have included the same issues stated in the WhatsApp message.

The Bench observed, "Prima facie the aforesaid message imputes lack of honesty to the persons in control and management of the affairs of the Club." It further recorded, "The tenor of the message in question tends to indicate prima facie that the plaintiff has circulated the message to disgrace or malign the office bearers of the Club including the members of the Committee."

Referring to the role of social clubs, the Bench noted, "There should be camaraderie amongst the members of a Club. Ill feeling or animosity should not have any place amongst them."

The court quoted the full text of Rule 22 from the Club’s Revised 2023 Rules, which outlines the procedures for suspension, the formation of a Special Board, and due process for expulsion.

The court noted that the Special Board would include the Club’s President or Vice President, three Committee members, three members nominated by the appellant, and all past Presidents of the Club residing in Kolkata. "Even if one were to assume – and we do not see any reason for such assumption – that the President / Vice President or the three members of the Committee nominated by the Committee will not be unbiased, the other members of the Special Board should be presumed to be impartial and they are the majority."

On the scope of judicial interference, the Bench stated, "The Court cannot sit in an appeal over a decision of the Executive Committee or governing body of a Club. The Court can at the highest set aside such a decision if it has been taken in bad faith or in violation of the principles of natural justice."

Discussing natural justice, the Bench cited decisions of the Supreme Court in UMC Technologies, Gorkha Security Services, Rajesh Agarwal, and Suresh G. Seth, acknowledging their relevance to procedural fairness. The court clarified that "Observance of the principles of natural justice does not necessarily mean that a written show-cause notice has to be issued to a person against whom action is proposed to be taken."

On the facts, the Bench held, "Prima facie we find that in the present case, the plaintiff was given opportunity of hearing not only by the MRC but also by the Executive Committee." It concluded that there was no breach of natural justice principles in the suspension process.

The Division Bench refused to interfere with the Single Judge’s order, stating, "The learned Single Judge has taken a view and has exercised his discretion in a particular manner. We cannot say that the order is perverse." It added, "In an intra Court appeal, even if the Appellate Court has a view different from that of the learned Single Judge, unless the order appealed against is clearly wrong or perverse, or shocks the conscience of the Appeal Court, no interference with the order is warranted so long as the order reflects a plausible view."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Parole Denial | Even A Condemned Prisoner Has Right To See His Ailing Mother | Invokes Article 226 For Humanitarian Escort

The court allowed the appeal to be disposed of, directing that "The respondents will be at liberty to file the affidavit in-opposition before the learned Single Judge within a week from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter." It left the matter to the Single Judge for final adjudication.

The Bench concluded, "We clarify that all observations in this order are prima facie and have been made only for the purpose of disposing of this appeal."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jishnu Choudhury, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar, Adv., Mr. Dhruv Surana, Adv., Mr. Debangshu Dinda, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Yash Vardhan Kochar, Adv., Mr. Souradeep Banerjee, Adv., Ms. Shruti Pal, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Garain, Adv., Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv., Mr. B.N. Joshi, Adv., Ms. D. Mukherji, Adv., Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anuj Singh, Adv., Mr. Anurag Bagaria, Adv.

Case Title: Jai Surana v. The Calcutta Swimming Club and Ors.

Case Number: APOT/78/2025 with CS/13/2025 and IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025

Bench: Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay