The Madras High Court has given the green signal to the Madras Race Club to sell a club property and dismissed an appeal filed by its former committee member challenging a single judge's order in this regard.
Confirming the order, a division bench of Justices R Subbiah and P D Audikesavalu said it was of the view that the appellant's action in instituting the suit and the original applications would in no way benefit the interest of the Madras Race club.
"Rather, it would only frustrate the action of the club to settle the prolonged sale transaction they have entered with the DLF Universal Limited," the bench said.
"We are therefore of the view that the appellant remained as a stumbling block and deprived the club to enter into the sale transaction legitimately with the DLF, for no cause or reason," the judges said and dismissed the appeal.
The club with a view to augment its income had decided to sell property of 5.556 acres of vacant land, also known as Race Hall Property, to DLF.
The property was already leased out to it.
More From This Section
The club at its meetings held on January 7 and 18 decided to accept the DLF offer of Rs 360 crore which includes Rs 60 crore deposited towards the lease amount by DLF.
The appellant A Viswanathan had sought a permanent injunction restraining the club from implementing the decisions.
He orginally filed a civil suit for declaring that the minutes of the meeting was illegal and in contravention of the Articles of Association of the club.
Rejecting the plea, the bench noted that the appellant had attended theJanuary 7 and 18meetings, but did not raise any objection.
He had alsoattended the Indian Turf Invitation Cup Races at Kolkatta onMarch 3 and 4, as a delegate and as a committee member of the MRC. Even then he did not raise any objection.
Hence, he had no locus standi to file the suit, the bench said.
The bench further observed that none of the members of the club, except the appellant, had raised any objection for the sale of the property in favour of DLF.
In any event, in the absence of any material evidence to show that the appellant had raised an objection in the two meetings, the appellant cannot straight away file the suit before the court, it said.