Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 542
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
Jagmohan Dalmiya
versus
The Board of Control for Cricket in India and Ors.
G. A. No. 1545 of 2007
DECIDED ON : 20 -7 -2007
S. B. Mookerjee Sr. Advocate., P. C. Sen Sr. Advocate. Pratap Chatterjee Sr. Advocate. Abhijit Chatterjee Sr.
Advocate. U. N. Banerjee, Amitesh Banerjee, for the Petitioner.; S. K. Kapur Sr. Advocate, Debal Banerji Sr. Advocate, Ranjan Bacchawat Bar-at-Law, Anil Gupta, Ravi Kapur Advocates, for the Respondents.
Headnote:
The petitioner, a former President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), challenged the resolution passed at the special general meeting of BCCI held on December 16, 2006, which forfeited all his rights and privileges as an administrator of BCCI and barred him from holding any position or office in any member or associate member of BCCI in future. The petitioner contended that the resolution was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice principles, and that the Disciplinary Committee that conducted the inquiry against him was biased. The respondents, BCCI and its office bearers, argued that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of BCCI.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), challenged the resolution passed at the special general meeting of BCCI held on December 16, 2006, which forfeited all his rights and privileges as an administrator of BCCI and barred him from holding any position or office in any member or associate member of BCCI in future. The petitioner contended that the resolution was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice principles, and that the Disciplinary Committee that conducted the inquiry against him was biased. The respondents, BCCI and its office bearers, argued that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of BCCI.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendments to the BCCI rules, which introduced the disciplinary procedure against past office bearers, were not registered within the prescribed time limit and were, therefore, of no effect. The court also held that the Disciplinary Committee acted with bias and in violation of the principles of natural justice, and that the impugned resolution was passed without jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendments to the BCCI rules, which introduced the disciplinary procedure against past office bearers, were registered within the prescribed time limit? 2. Whether the Disciplinary Committee acted with bias and in violation of the principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the impugned resolution was passed without jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the time limit for registration of amendments to the BCCI rules was mandatory and could not be extended beyond six months. The amendments in question were not registered within the prescribed time limit and were, therefore, of no effect. 2. The court found that the Disciplinary Committee had proceeded against the petitioner with a closed mind and bias, and had avoided recording any finding on many of the issues raised by the petitioner. The committee had also made an adverse finding against the petitioner without examining any representative of the auditors, despite the petitioner's specific stand that he had forwarded documents to the auditors. 3. The court held that the impugned resolution was passed without jurisdiction, as the amendments to the BCCI rules, which introduced the disciplinary procedure against past office bearers, were not registered within the prescribed time limit.
Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner's application for an interim injunction, restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned resolution passed at the special general meeting of BCCI held on December 16, 2006.
2. Respondent BCCI is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and deemed to be registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the 1975 Act by virtue of Section 53 of the said 1975 Act.
3. Respondent BCCI, as its name suggests controls the game of cricket in India and exercises wide powers which include amongst others the power to frame rules of cricket in India and the power to select players to represent India in cricket matches and/or tournaments. Respondent BCCI arranges, regulates and even finances cricketing tours of Indian teams to foreign countries and arranges, regulates and controls cricket matches in this country between India and members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) as well as Indian teams inter se at the national level. Apart from test matches Respondent BCCI is responsible for organizing other important tournaments of national interest such as the Ranji Trophy and the Duleep Trophy.
4. The petitioner is a well-known personality in the realm of cricket who has been associated with different Cricket Associations and Cricket Clubs. The petitioner has been office bearer of Respondent BCCI in the capacity of President, Honorary Secretary and Treasurer. The petitioner was Honorary Treasurer of Respondent BCCI in 1983-84 and 1984-85, Honorary Secretary in 1990-91 and again from 1993 till July, 1997 when the petitioner took over as the President of the International Cricket Council. The petitioner claims to be the first Asian to have been elected to the coveted post of the President of the International Cricket Council. The petitioner was the President of Respondent BCCI from September, 2001 till January 2005. The petitioner has also been Chairman of the Asian Cricket Council and the President of the Cricket Association of Bengal and the National Cricket Club.
5. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner was elected Honorary Secretary of respondent BCCI in September, 1993 the accounts of Respondent BCCI reflected deficit of Rs.85 lakhs. When the petitioner laid down office as President of respondent BCCI, respondent BCCI had over Rs. 100 crores in its coffer.
6. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was instrumental in securing allotment of World Cup 1996 to the Indian subcontinent comprising Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka.
7. After World Cup 1996 was allotted to the sub-continent, the members of the Board of Cricket Control of Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka formed a committee which was known as PILCOM. The Chairman and the Treasurer of PILCOM were from Pakistan and the President and the Convenor Secretary were from India.
8. The petitioner became the Convenor Secretary of PILCOM. An Asian bank account was opened at Citibank, London, U.K. in the name of PILCOM and the Asian signatories were the Convenor Secretary from India, that is, the petitioner and the Treasurer from Pakistan.
9. According to the petitioner the account is still maintained and about 3.7 million U.S. Dollars equivalent to Rs.
18 crores is lying in the account. According to the petitioner, save and except the aforesaid account at Citibank, London, U.K., there is no other account in the name of PILCOM anywhere in India or abroad.
10. For conducting the World Cup matches in India, Respondent BCC
