- (1.)THIS order will dispose of Notice of Motion Nos. 242 of 1999, in Suit No. 412 of 1999, 243 of 1999 in Suit No. 413 of 1999 and 241 of 1999, in Suit No. 414 of 1999. The plaintiffs in the three suits have challenged the show cause notices dated 13-1-1999 culminating in the suspension order dated 21-1-1999 on the grounds that they are ultra vires the Articles of Association of the defendant No. 12 Club. A declaration was also sought to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to all the benefits of the membership of defendant No. 12 including the use of the golf course. Prayer is also made for issue of an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 12 Club, its General Committee and its servants, officers and agents from restraining the plaintiff from in any manner enjoying the benefits of their members. The plaintiffs have also claimed that the defendant No. 1 to 10 be ordered and decreed jointly and severally to make payment to each of the plaintiffs by way of damages in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of reputation and the defamation caused by the defendants acts.
(2.)NOTICES of Motion have been taken out for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner preventing the plaintiffs from enjoying any of the rights and privileges of their membership of the 12th defendant and/or from participating in the gold tournaments to be held on the Golf Club of defendant No. 12.
(3.)DEFENDANT No. 12 is the Bombay Presidency Golf Club (hereinafter referred to as BPGC), a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The 12th defendant Company owns property situate at Chembur on which stands a Club house and an 18 Hole Golf course. Various facilities including golf are offered to the members of the BPGC which is managed by a General Committee elected by the general body of the members of BPGC. Defendant Nos. 1 to 10 are current members of the General Committee of BPGC who are parties to the decision of the General Committee that is challenged in the three suits. Defendant No. 11 is the Paid Secretary and the Chief Executive Officer of the BPGC. Defendant No. 1 is the President of BPGC. Defendant No. 2 is the Captain of BPGC. As Captain, defendant No. 2 is responsible for the maintenance of the golf course and the golfing activities of the BPGC. All the plaintiffs in the three suits are long standing members of BPGC. All the plaintiffs have been actively participating in the activities of the Club. Plaintiff No. 1 in Suit No. 412 of 1999 was ex-President of the Club. Plaintiff in Suit No. 413 has been on the General Committee of the Club. Plaintiff in Suit No. 414 is currently on the General Committee. The dispute between the parties arose out of an incident which took place in the evening of 9th January, 1999. A golf tournament was scheduled to be held at the BPGC on 9th and 10th January, 1999. For representation in the aforesaid tournament, plaintiffs in the above three suits were selected as players in a meeting held on 6th January, 1999. After the first day of the inter club tournaments on 9th January, 1999 a meeting of the members of the BPGC was held in the conference hall to discuss the pairings and strategy for the next and the final day of the tournament i. e. 10th January, 1999. After the meeting broke up, the plaintiffs in the three suits discussed certain changes in the pairing which had been decided and finalised by the defendant No. 1. This decision to change pairings was taken by the plaintiffs in the three suits without consent of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 was present in the Club premises till about 8. 30 p. m. in the evening, yet the change in pairing was not brought to his notice. At around 9. 00 p. m. that night plaintiff in Suit No. 412 of 1999 telephonically informed the first defendant about these changes. The first defendant indicated that he was upset with these changes having been made without his approval. The plaintiff apologised and explained the circumstances in which the changes had to be so made and added that the original pairings could be reverted to if the first defendant so desired and could make a request to that effect to the sponsors. The first defendant is alleged to have told the plaintiff that he would ensure that every member of the team would play the next day i. e. 10th January, 1999. The first defendant is also alleged to have promised at the Club house the next morning before the first match teed off which was scheduled for 8. 10 a. m. The first defendant did not revert to the original pairs but accepted the changes made by the plaintiffs and the two plaintiffs in the other suits. It is further alleged that on 10th January, 1999 the first defendant arrived at the Club house after a few team had already been teed off. One of the players of the BPGC Shri Sirus Gazdar, refused to play and conceded his match in objection to the changes which have been made without his consent. Another player also disqualified his indignation. The plaintiff is said to have again apologised to the first defendant for the changes made. According to the plaintiffs, these changes had been made in the best interest of BPGC. The plaintiff further states that he was under the genuine belief at that time that the first defendant though initially upset ultimately accepted the explanation and the apology offered by the plaintiff. It is further stated that the plaintiff did not see the second defendant at all at the BPGC on 10-1-1999. Thereafter the three plaintiffs were served with a show cause notice on 13-1-1999. These show cause notices are challenged in the three suits. The show cause notice have been served under the signatures of defendant No. 1. In the show cause notices it is stated that Inter club tournament was slated on 9th and 10th January, 1999 and the team of BPGC for 9th January, 1999 was announced after the detailed perusal and discussion by the Tournament Committee. The team for 10-1-1999 was also announced after the detailed deliberations and unanimous decision of the participants. The same was submitted to the organisers under the due signatures of the President. However, thereafter plaintiffs had changed the Team/combination without specific authorisation/prior approval either from the President or the Captain, thereby creating a lot of confusion causing great damage to the image of BPGC. The plaintiffs in the three suits were required to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. It was stated that the reply of the plaintiffs must reach the Club office at 3. 00 p. m. on Monday the 15th January, 1999.