Chandigarh Club plea over dues dismissed


Chandigarh, December 29

Additional District Judge Jaibir Singh has dismissed an appeal of the Chandigarh Club challenging the order of a trial court which had quashed the club’s notice issued to a member, advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, directing him to pay dues worth Rs 72, 404.

While terming the notice illegal, null and void, the trial court, in its order dated October 07, 2021, had also directed the club to adjust the amount already deposited towards the future payments of the member. The trial court’s pronounced the order on a suit filed by Sinha against a notice issued by the club on October 10, 2012, asking him to pay Rs 72,404 in dues.

Sinha had claimed that the notice was illegal, arbitrary and defamatory and was issued without any records of the alleged pending bills. He said he was enrolled as a permanent member of the Chandigarh Club in 2001-02 on a payment of the requisite fee and on the completion of other formalities. The amount was raised by the club from the permanent voting member, who had cast vote in 2004 when the election to the executive body of the club was held. No dues certificate was issued to him as per the club’s record in 2011. He also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the club from acting on the basis of the notice from striking off his name from the list of permanent members of the club.

After hearing the arguments, the trial court restrained the club from acting on the basis of the notice in any manner.

Not satisfied with the order, the club had filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge. The counsel for the club argued that after scrutiny and audit of the club, it had been found that Rs 72,404 was outstanding against the member. The club also argued the respondent had also failed to produce the document/receipt showing that there were no dues towards him.

Sinha argued that the club had failed to show any records for the outstanding bills. He also said the club did not give a person a permanent membership (with voting right) without charging the requisite fee.

After hearing the arguments, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the club. The court said the appellant had admitted the fact that the club did not make a person a permanent member with voting right without charging the requisite fee. The court said when the voting rights were given only to permanent members, he was not expected to keep the receipt of original registration charges.