- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5085 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: MR. B.N. SHIVAPRAKASHA S/O NARASIMHAIAH N AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS SENIOR CLERK OF THE COURSE (BTC) BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED POST BOX NO.5038, 52 RACE COURSE ROAD, RACE COURSE GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001 KARNATAKA ALSO AT DOOR NO.474, 3RD BLOCK SIR M. VISVESWARAYAIAH LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 056 KARNATAKA …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED REPRESENTED BY "CEO AND SECRETARY" POST BOX NO.5038, 52 RACE COURSE ROAD, RACE COURSE GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001 KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.S. RAMDAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.23.06.2025 ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4085/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH NO.23), REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "CPC"), by the appellant challenging the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Court of the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judges, Bengaluru (CCH-23), in O.S.No.4085/2025, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the appellant’s application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from giving effect to the termination of his employment. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 2. The appellant, Sri. B.N. Shivaprakash, was appointed as Under Study Assistant Track Manager by the respondent - Bengaluru Turf Club Ltd., on 05.08.2012. His services were confirmed as Assistant Track Manager on 26.03.2014. Subsequently, he was elevated to the post of Administrator and Senior Clerk of the course with effect from 01.10.2021. During this period, the appellant also discharged additional functions and responsibilities, such as secretary to race meetings, secretary general of the turf authorities of India and other allied administrative assignments. The appellant claims that, his performance remained unblemished and had earned him appreciation and recognition from the Bengaluru Turf Club as well as other racing institutions, including the Royal Western India Turf Club. According to the appellant, the professional environment changed considerably following the appointment of a new Chief Executive Officer and Secretary on 23.06.2022. The appellant contends that, after the said officer took charge, there was a deliberate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 effort to curtail his functions, reduce his responsibilities, and engineering false complaints against him with the intention of targeting him for removal. It is alleged that, in the month of September 2023, the appellant was allegedly demoted arbitrarily. One of the incidents central to the appellant's grievance occurred during Managing Committee Meeting No. 35/2023-24 held on 12.09.2024, when the appellant raised scientifically grounded objections to the Club's proposal to procure uncertified Coco peat-based manure from a firm named M/s Virat Smart Soil in preference to a certified supplier, namely Dynasuper - Dynamic Lifter. The appellant asserts that, his objection, although professional and scientifically supported, caused discomfort among certain committee members and eventually led to disciplinary action being initiated against him. 3. On 08.10.2024, one Mr. Jagadish K.A., a member of the interim committee, lodged a complaint alleging procedural and other irregularities in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 discharge of course maintenance responsibilities. Following this, the Managing Committee, in Meeting No. 37/2023-24 held on 09.10.2024, resolved to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. Although the minutes of the said meeting reportedly recorded only the issuance of a show cause notice, the appellant was placed under suspension by notice dated 21.10.2024. It is the appellant’s case that, such suspension was unilateral and unauthorised, and that, the several committee members later admitted that, no resolution had been passed to suspend him. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant submitted a detailed explanation, and despite having co-operated fully with the disciplinary process, he contends that, the process was manipulated to secure a predetermined outcome against him. 4. On 21.11.2024, a formal charge sheet was issued to the appellant. A domestic enquiry was commenced and continued for several months, extending over 40 sittings between November 2024 and May 2025. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 During the course of the enquiry, the appellant examined several witnesses, including DWs. 1 to 5, who were persons familiar with the procurement transactions, race course conditions, and related matters. The appellant contends that, the evidence placed on record clearly exonerated him of the charges and exposed material irregularities on the part of the management, including tampering of committee minutes, illegal procurement practices, and violations of statutory fertilizer guidelines. The appellant further contends that, midway through the enquiry, the enquiry officer, Mr. N. Srinivasa, abruptly withdrew from the proceedings, citing personal distress caused by questions raised by one of the defence witnesses. This sudden withdrawal disrupted the enquiry process and left the proceedings inconclusive. 5. The appellant's grievance intensified when the managing committee, in Meeting No. 15/2024-25 held on 10.05.2025, passed a resolution to terminate the disciplinary enquiry. The same meeting also recorded the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 decision to terminate the appellant's services. Thereafter, a termination letter dated 12.05.2025 was issued to the appellant by the respondent, citing clause 20 of the appointment order dated 05.08.2012 and Rule 10 of the Bangalore Turf Club Service Rules, 2019. The appellant contends that, the termination is illegal and void, as Rule 10 specifically prohibits termination of a permanent employee when disciplinary proceedings are pending, and that his employment status was that of a confirmed permanent employee. It is also his case that, termination without awaiting the outcome of the enquiry amounts to a direct and gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. In response to the said termination, the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.4085/2025 seeking a declaration that, the order of the termination is illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio and sought a direction for reinstatement to his former position. He simultaneously filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 seeking a temporary injunction to stay the operation of the termination order pending disposal of the suit. 7. The respondent resisted the application by contending that, the appellant's services were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of his original appointment, which allowed for termination by either party with one month's notice. It was contended that, the relationship between the appellant and respondent was purely contractual in nature and governed by private employment terms, not protected by any statute such as the Industrial Disputes Act or Article 311 of the Constitution. The respondent also submitted that, the Writ Petition filed earlier by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution in W.P. No. 15820/2025 challenging the same termination had been voluntarily withdrawn by the appellant on 11.06.2025. It was further submitted that, granting temporary injunction would amount to granting the principal relief of reinstatement and is not permissible at an interim stage. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 8. The learned trial Court, upon hearing both sides and perusing the materials on record, held that, the appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction. The Court observed that, an injunction staying the operation of the termination order would, in effect, amount to interim reinstatement, which cannot be granted under the limited scope of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It also noted that, the termination had already taken place and that the appellant had access to alternative legal remedies in the pending suit. On these grounds, I.A.No. 1 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant with all vehemence submits that, in view of the facts so brought on record by the appellant in the plaint as well as the illegal actions of the defendant, he was compelled to file a civil suit by withdrawing the writ petition. He submits that, the very rules so framed with regard to the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 functioning of the respondent - Club - are violated by the committee and initially there was a suspension, and thereafter termination order by stopping the enquiry, which is against the principles of natural justice. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant took this Court to various citations, such as Suraj Narredu v. Bangalore Turf Club Limited in MFA No. 4323/2021 passed by this Court. 10. As against this submission, the counsel for the respondent submits that, the employment of the appellant is governed by the Contract Act. The appellant cannot take the assistance of the Civil Court to get him reinstated. He submits that, the termination order has been rightly passed by the committee by passing a resolution and such a reinstatement cannot be done by passing the interim order. He submits that, when there is enforcement of the contract for personal service, the general rule is that declaration that appellant continued to be in service etc, is not permissible. He submits that, an employer cannot be - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 forced to take an employee with whom relations have reached a point of complete loss of faith between the two. In support of his submission, he relied upon the provisions of Sections 14(b) and 34 of the Specific Relief Act and also a judgment of the Apex Court in Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 172. 11. Further, he submits that, the prayer in the plaint cannot be granted by the Civil Court. The said prayer is barred under the provisions of the specific Relief Act. By filing the suit, the plaintiff wants to seek specific performance of a contract of his personal service, which is specifically barred under the Specific Relief Act. Further, he submits that, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the interim application filed by the appellant. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following judgment: (i) State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs Sandeep Kumar Balmiki and others reported in (2009) 17 SCC 555 paras - 4, 5 and 6. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 (ii) Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd vs Manorama Sirsi reported in (2004) 3 SCC 172 paras - 7, 8 and 10. (iii) Bank of Baroda Ltd vs Jeewan Lal Mehrotra reported in (1971) (3) SCC 677 paras - 2 and 3. (iv) Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co.Ltd., Rae Bareli and another vs Badri Nath Dixit and others reported in (1991) 3 SCC 54 paras 10. (v) Integrated Rural Development Agency vs Ram Pyare Pandey reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 493 paras 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. (vi) Apollo Tyres Limited vs C P Sebastian reported in (2009) 14 SCC 360 paras 1, 8, 9 and 10. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both sides. This Court has carefully examined the order under challenge, the documents on record, and the submissions advanced by both the parties. It is apparent from the appellants’ own pleadings that, the termination was preceded by a series of disciplinary steps, including show cause notices, charge sheet, and a protracted enquiry process. The facts so presented reflect that, the enquiry had progressed substantially and that defence evidence had been led before it was suddenly - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 discontinued by the respondent. The question is, whether the termination was legally sustainable in the absence of an enquiry report and whether the respondent acted in violation of its own rules or issues that, merit adjudication in the trial. However, for the purpose of the present appeal, the scope of consultation is restricted to whether the learned trial Court was correct in rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction. 13. The legal position is well settled that, interim injunction cannot be granted if it would result in granting the main relief itself. The Court cannot, at an interlocutory stage, by way of temporary injunction, grant what would essentially be the fruit of a final decree. Such a course would be, indirect contravention of the well-known Maxim "Quia timet", which justifies preventive relief only where the threatened harm is irreparable and not speculative. The appellants claim in the suit is for a declaration that, the termination is void and for consequential reinstatement. Courts must exercise restraint in matters - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 involving enforcement of personal service contracts, as rightly argued by the counsel of the respondent, particularly when the termination has already taken effect and the employer-employee relationship has ceased to subsist. 14. It is also important to note that the observations made by the learned trial Court regarding the appellant's failure to establish irreparable harm or balance of convenience are legally tenable. The appellant continues to have access to the civil remedy and can press his claims during trial. No material is placed before this Court to indicate that, the appellant would suffer such hardship or injury as would justify reversal of the trial Court's order at this stage. Furthermore, it appears from the record that, the appellant had earlier pursued constitutional remedies through a Writ Petition and then elected to pursue civil remedies. In these circumstances, no exceptional case is made out to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 15. Moreover, interim reliefs are inherently discretionary, and the exercise of that discretion is governed by equitable principles such as, "he who seeks equity must do equity", and "equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights". Courts must therefore exercise restraint, particularly in matters involving enforcement of contracts of personal service, where the employer - Employee relationship has been severed and where such relationships are not governed by statutory protection under service jurisprudence. Granting reinstatement, even indirectly, through an interim injunction, would blur the distinction between interlocutory and final relief, which is impermissible in law. 16. This Court is of the considered view that, the order of the trial Court is based on sound reasoning and requires no interference. However, this Court also clarifies that, all observations made in this judgment are restricted to the scope of the present appeal, which relates only to the refusal of interim relief. These findings shall not - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30305 MFA No. 5085 of 2025 influence or bind the trial Court in its independent adjudication of the suit on merits. All questions regarding the validity of the termination, alleged violation of Rule 10, the applicability of natural justice principles, and the reliefs claim shall be decided uninfluenced by this order. 17. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No. 4085/2025 is affirmed. No order as to cost. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29