IMPORTANT POINTS
Maintainability of suits and interim injunction discussed.
Additional documents cannot be permitted to be produced before the Supreme Court for the first time unless the manner, time and source of the documents are disclosed and the reasons for not bringing the documents on record before trial court are explained.

Headnote:(a) Memorandum and Rules and Regulations of the BCCI – Clauses 1(n) and 32 – Administrator – A past president only on being nominated on any of the sub-committees of BCCI would be deemed to be an administrator – Not otherwise. (Para 14)
(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 108 – Order I rule 8 – Merely being a past president does not entitle a person to maintain an action in law against BCCI. (Para 14)
(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34 – Appellant not claiming entitlement to declaration relating to a legal character nor claiming any legal character – The Act does not apply. (Paras 16 to 18)
(d) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 41(J) – Appellant not having any personal interest in the matter – Injunction can be refused. (Para 16)
(e) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order I, rule 8 – Where large body of persons is interested in one issue, an individual can approach the court without recourse to the ordinary procedure – Provision aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits on common issue – Failure to seek permission of the court will not confer representative status to the plaintiff – This having not been done the suits were filed in individual capacity and not in representative capacity. (Para 20)
AIR 1990 SC 642; AIR 1965 SC 11 – Relied upon
(f) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 91 – PIL for removing nuisance – Suit u/s 91 can be maintained if prior leave of the court has been taken and two or more persons join as plaintiffs – These conditions having not been satisfied, suits filed by appellant are not PIL u/s 91. (Para 21)
(g) BCCI Regulations – Regulation 6.2.4 – Challenge to Amendment – BCCI is a private autonomous Society – Its actions have to be judged only like any other similar society or body and not like an instrumentality of State or other authority exercising public functions – Validity of amendment to Regulations will have to be tested only in the light of the interest of the society and its members and not vis-à-vis the interest of non members/strangers – Public policy of a society must be in consonance with the statute under which it is registered or is being governed and not public policy as indicated in the constitution (Para 23)
(2005) 5 SCC 632; (1997) 3 SCC 681; (2005) 4 SCC 649 – Relied upon
(2005) 4 SCC 741 – Not a good law
(1992) 1 SCC 719; AIR 1969 Madras 42 – Referred
(h) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXIX, rule 1 – When the suits are held to be not maintainable, question of grant of injunction does not arise. (Para 29)
(i) BCCI Players’ Regulations – Clause 6.2.4 – The provision at relevant time cannot be construed to include events like T20, these having been introduced after the year 2000 – Respondent no. 2 did not violate players regulations at the relevant time – Injunction rightly refused. (Para 35)
(j) Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 – Section 12 – Has no application to amendment of BCCI Players’ Regulations – Moreover, the appellant not being even a member of BCCI, is not entitled to challenge the amendment . (Para 37)
(k) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI Rule 4 – In absence of details, allegations of undue influence cannot be accepted. (Para 41)
(l) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXXIX, rule 1 – Respondent no. 2 likely to be prejudiced greatly if injunction as prayed by appellant is granted – On the other hand, appellant will not be prejudiced at all by non-grant of injunction – Further, if the injunctions as prayed for are granted the suits would stand decreed without adjudicating the claims raised by the respondents, on merits – Appellant not entitled to injunction. (Paras 44 and 48)
(m) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Permission sought to produce additional documents before Supreme Court for the first time – Not permissible. (Para 45)
(n) Supreme Court Rules – Order XVI, Rule 4(1)(d)(ii) – Additional documents cannot be permitted to be produced unless the manner, time and source of the documents are disclosed – The reasons for not bringing the documents on record before trial court also has to be explained. (Para 49)
Facts of the case:
1. The appellant prayed for four reliefs, namely (1) to grant mandatory temporary injunction directing the respondent No. 1 herein to act under Clause 32(ii) of Memorandum and Rules and Regulations of the respondent No. 1 by appointing a Commissioner to make preliminary inquiry against the respondent No. 2, (2) to suspend the amendment to Clause 6.2.4 in the Regulations for players, team officials, managers, umpires and administrators and Board of Control for Cricket in India Code 2008, which permits an administrator to have directly or indirectly commercial interest in the matches or events like Indian Premier League or Champions League Twenty 20, (3) to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 from functioning as Secretary of BCCI and (4) to grant mandatory temporary injunction directing BCCI not to permit the respondent No. 2 to contest any of the posts of office bearers in future for a reasonable number of years as the Court thinks fit, is upheld.
2. The High Court declined to grant the prayers.
Finding of the Court:
1. The appellant does not claim or seek to maintain the suits as an administrator.
2. BCCI is not an instrumentality of State and the two suits filed by the appellant are not maintainable.
3. There was no mala fide in amending clause 6.2.4
4. A just approach has been adopted by the High Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided document, here are the key points:

The maintainability of suits and the granting of interim injunctions were central issues discussed. It was emphasized that additional documents cannot be introduced before the Supreme Court for the first time unless the manner, time, source, and reasons for not producing them earlier are fully disclosed and explained (!) .
The definition of 'Administrator' includes both current and former Presidents, Vice Presidents, Secretaries, Treasurers, and other persons connected with the BCCI or nominated to its sub-committees. A past President, if connected with the administration or nominated to a sub-committee, qualifies as an 'Administrator' and has the legal standing to challenge amendments or actions of the BCCI (!) (!) .
The suits filed by the appellant were not in the capacity of an 'Administrator' as defined, since he was not appointed to any sub-committee nor a member of the society, and thus lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge amendments or conduct proceedings against the BCCI (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that civil suits are to be decided on cause of action and the proper party's standing, not on whether the BCCI qualifies as a 'State' under constitutional provisions. The question of whether the BCCI discharges public functions akin to State functions does not determine the maintainability of civil suits (!) (!) .
The amendments to the BCCI Regulations, especially regarding conflict of interest and commercial interests of officials, were scrutinized. It was found that amendments made without proper notice or deliberation, especially those carving out exceptions for lucrative events like IPL, were arbitrary and aimed at benefiting specific individuals. Such amendments were considered fit to be suspended pending final adjudication (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court highlighted that the BCCI, while exercising monopoly-like powers over cricket regulation, is a private autonomous body and not an instrumentality of the State. Its actions are subject to legal scrutiny, but it does not fall under the direct control or ownership of the government, and its functions are not inherently public duties of the State (!) (!) (!) .
The principle that conflict of interest involves potential or future situations that could impair the fair discharge of duties was reaffirmed. The importance of transparency and fairness in governance, especially for bodies discharging public or quasi-public functions, was underscored (!) (!) .
The Court reiterated that the legal process must be based on clear cause of action, proper parties, and adherence to procedural requirements. The filing of suits by individuals not properly authorized or without proper standing, especially in the absence of statutory or constitutional violations, results in the rejection of interim reliefs (!) (!) .
The importance of procedural compliance, including proper notice for amendments and the absence of undue influence or mala fides, was emphasized. Amendments introduced without following due process, such as insufficient notice or deliberate haste, are liable to be set aside (!) (!) (!) .
The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the suits were not maintainable and that the interim reliefs sought were rightly denied. The procedural and substantive issues regarding the standing of the appellant and the validity of amendments were decisive in this outcome (!) (!) .
Overall, the Court underscored that private bodies like the BCCI, while exercising significant powers, are not equivalent to public authorities unless specifically recognized as instrumentalities of the State. Their internal regulations and amendments are subject to legal scrutiny, especially when procedural irregularities or motives of bias are evident (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these key points.

JUDGMENT

J.M. Panchal, J. —

Leave is granted in each petition.

2. These appeals are directed against common judgment dated March 24, 2010, rendered in OSA Nos. 226 to 229 of 2009 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by which, the order dated July 13, 2009 in OA No. 1042 of 2008, filed in Civil Suit No. 930 of 2008 with OA Nos. 1299, 1300 and 5740 of 2008, filed in Civil Suit No. 1167 of 2008, refusing to grant four reliefs sought, namely, (1) to grant mandatory temporary injunction directing the respondent No. 1 herein to act under Clause 32(ii) of Memorandum and Rules and Regulations (“Regulations” for short) of the respondent No. 1 by appointing a Commissioner to make preliminary inquiry against the respondent No. 2 pending disposal of Civil Suit No. 930 of 2008, (2) to suspend the amendment to Clause 6.2.4 in the Regulations for players, team officials, managers, umpires and administrators and Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short “BCCI”) Code 2008, which permits an administrator to have directly or indirectly commercial interest in the matches or events like Indian Premier League (“IPL” for short) or Champions League Twenty 20, (3) to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 from functioning as Secretary of BCCI and (4) to grant mandatory temporary injunction directing BCCI not to permit the respondent No. 2 to contest any of the posts of office bearers in future for a reasonable number of years as the Court thinks fit, is upheld.

3. In order to understand the controversy raised in the instant cases it will be relevant to notice the essential facts emerging from record of the case. The BCCI was formed in the year 1928. Initially it was functioning as an unregistered association of persons. However, subsequently it was registered in the year 1940, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. After the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, which came into effect from April 22, 1978, it is registered under the said Act. Under Section 6 of the Act of 1975, any society seeking to register itself has to submit its Memorandum of Association and regulations/bye-laws/rules. In respect of BCCI, the Memorandum of Associations and the Regulations/Rules, as required by the said Act, have been submitted. The record of the case shows that registration of BCCI as a Society is governed by those two documents. The object of BCCI is to control the game of cricket in India and give its decision on all matters which may be referred to it. Another object is to encourage the formation of State, regional or other cricket associations in the country. The other objects have been enumerated in detail in the Memorandum of Association, but the Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the same. The respondent No. 1, i.e., the BCCI sent an invitation to India Cements Limited based at Chennai and represented by its Managing Director Mr. N. Srinivasan, who is respondent No. 2 herein, on December 29, 2007, to participate in the auction conducted by IPL. It may be mentioned that at that time the respondent No. 2 was also the Honorary Treasurer of BCCI and the President of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association. The respondent No. 2, on behalf of India Cements Limited, participated in the auction and was awarded the franchised IPL rights for ownership of Chennai Super Kings team by the BCCI.

4. The appellant is the Ex-President of BCCI. According to him, he is an administrator as defined in Clause 1(n) of the Regulations framed by BCCI. The appellant addressed a letter dated September 5, 2008 to the President of BCCI and made complaint about the violation of Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations by the respondent No. 2. In the said letter it was claimed by the appellant that the respondent No. 2 was liable to be penalized since he is the Managing Director of India Cements Limited, which was one of the franchisee of IPL and IPL being an event of BCCI, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 465

Cases Referred (7)