Cricket Association of Bihar vs Board of Control For Cricket in India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(Bom) 1419

S.J.VAZIFDAR, M.S.SONAK
Cricket Association of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Board of Control For Cricket in India – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel with Dr. Birendra Saraf, Ameet Naik, Karan Bhosale, Vaibhav M. Bhure, Tashi Phuntsog, Asadulla Thangal i/b Naik Naik & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, Rafique Dada, Senior Counsel with T.N. Subramanian, Senior Counsel, Ms. Ankhila Kaushik, Rahul Mascerhnas, Indranil Deshmukh, Aditya Mehta, Adarsh Saxena i/b Amarchand Mangaldas & S.A. Shroff & Co., R2, I.M. Chagla, Senior Counsel with F.E. De-Vitre, Senior Counsel, Prashant Beri i/b Beri & Co., R3, Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Counsel with Sharan Jagtiani, Rohan Dakshini, S. Bobde, Ms. Nikita Mishra i/b Federal & Rashmikant, R4, J.J. Bhatt, Senior Counsel with Shyam Mehta, Senior Counsel with Ashish Kamat i/b Crawrord Bayley & Co., Advocates.

Judgment :-

1. Rule. The Writ Petition is heard finally.

2. The petition is filed as a public interest litigation.

The petitioner is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Respondent no.2 – N. Srinivasan is the President of respondent No.1 – The Board of Control for Cricket in India. Respondent No.2 is a shareholder and the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.3 – India Cement Limited. Respondent No.3 is the owner of a cricket team / franchisee – Chennai Super Kings. Respondent No.4 – Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited is the owner of a cricket team / franchisee – Rajasthan Royals.

The two teams, participated in the Indian Premium League (hereinafter referred to as “IPL”) the only Twenty – 20 cricket tournament organized by respondent No.1 – conducted earlier this year.

3(A). The petitioner has sought several reliefs. Dr. Tulzapurkar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, confined himself to only the following reliefs. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No.1 to recall its order constituting the probe panel comprising of two learned retired Judges of the Madras High Court to probe into the all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(Bom) 1419

S.J.VAZIFDAR, M.S.SONAKCricket Association of Bihar – AppellantVersusBoard of Control For Cricket in India – Respondent

Cases Referred (5)

S.J.VAZIFDAR, M.S.SONAK
Cricket Association of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Board of Control For Cricket in India – Respondent