Member seeks to restrain club from spending money
Approvals obtained in EGM illegal: applicant
Applicant has no bona fides to file suit: Club
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed an application in a civil suit seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the Madras Gymkhana Club (MGC) from spending any money, pursuant to the approval from the extraordinary general meeting (EGM), without obtaining a sublease on the golf course situated on the property and written permission from the defence authorities.
It also treated as closed another application by the same applicant seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against P.V.S. Vencatsubramanian, honorary secretary of the club, for making a false statement in the counter-affidavit presented to the court.
The applicant, K.C. Sukumar, a member of the club for the past 22 years, had filed a civil suit for a declaration that the approvals obtained in the EGM on March 20 this year, for initial investments in a golf course for Rs.3.50 crore without lease or sub-lease on the property currently under exclusive usage lease to Madras Race Club (MRC), as illegal and ultra vires. He also sought a declaration that funds allocated for alterations in the building, located on Island Grounds, without written permission from the Estate Officer of the Defence Estates, Pune, as illegal and not binding on MGC and its members.
In its counter, the MGC said the applicant had no bona fides to file the present suit. The golf course was in the Guindy Race Course and the respondent was maintaining the golf course. A permanent maintenance agreement was entered into between the MGC and MRC.
Both clubs had since then been carrying on their respective sporting activities amicably. As regards renovation and repairs in the building on Island Grounds, the MGC had already informed the Defence Estate Officer.
The applicant’s motive was to stall the present committee from going ahead with the approved project, the respondent said.
Justice K. Chandru said the applicant had not made out a prima facie case nor was the balance of convenience in his favour to grant an interim injunction.
The respondent’s stand was that it was aware of the limitations and all activities would be carried out after considering the members’ interest and by getting appropriate sanction, the judge said.