RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

1. The contours of the captioned application are brief:

1.1 The plaintiff/applicant has sought an anti-suit injunction against defendant no. 1. The immediate cause for instituting the present suit is the proposed action sought to be instituted by defendant no. 1 in the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as the „1st U.K. Claim) which effectively succeeds a prior suit [being CS(OS) No. 1566/2007] instituted at the behest of defendant no. 1 in this court (hereinafter referred to as „Indian Claim). Admittedly, the Indian claim which is pending adjudication is at the stage of evidence. It therefore becomes necessary to paraphrase the broad averments on which the Indian claim and the 1st UK claim are pivoted. For the sake of convenience, I would refer to the plaintiff, i.e., Board of Control for Cricket in India as the BCCI and similarly, defendant no. 1, i.e., the Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. as ESPL.

1.2 INDIAN CLAIM.

(i) The BCCI has illegally conferred upon itself the role of an administrator and regulator of Indian cricket, both in the country and abroad.

(ii) The BCCI has illegally refused to recognize the Indian Cricket League (in short the „ICL) which is conceived, promoted, managed and controlled by ESPL as the organizer of „official cricket.

(iii) The BCCI has taken a position before courts in India, including the Supreme Court, that it is a private organization which is not controlled by the Government of India.

(iv) The ICL has been conceived to provide impetus to discover talent and consequently develop it, by giving opportunity to a large number of youngsters who do not get selected to the state cricket teams or the cricket teams at the national level. For this purpose, the ESPL, has started new tournaments, training programmes at district, state and national level under the guidance of Indian cricketing legends such as Kapil Dev, Sandeep Patil and Kiran More. Resultantly, there shall be not only opportunities available to a large number of cricketers to showcase their talent but also, a larger pool of budding cricketers would be available to the selectors both at the state and national level.

(v) The BCCI has both “covertly” and “overtly” taken steps to „stultify and oppose ICL. In furtherance of its strategy to stymie the cause of ICL, the BCCI has made sure that cricket stadiums, which are affiliated to state associations, are not made available for matches organized by ICL.

(vi) Even though the BCCI asserts that it does not enjoy a monopoly, its conduct is such that it has created a de-facto monopoly. Instances of exercise of such monopolistic power are set out in paragraphs 25, 26 and 27.

(vii) There is a specific reference that in response to ESPLs communication dated 03.04.2007, the BCCI vide its communication of 21.06.2007 (which was addressed to the Presidents and Honorary Secretaries of all affiliated units) purportedly intimidated and threatened such affiliate units with serious consequences in the event any of its stadium or cricket players associated with them participated in tournaments/matches organized by ICL.

(viii) The action of the BCCI in facilitating player participation in matches organized by event management companies as also matches organized by International Cricket Council (hereinafter referred to as „ICC) is both discriminatory as well as arbitrary. It is alleged that the plaintiff has entered into a “conspiracy” with the state affiliated units which has resulted in “wrongful loss”, “harm” and “damage” to ESPL.

(ix) The BCCI has, in attempting to achieve its stated goal of causing loss to ESPL, conspired and intimidated not only current players but also retired players by altering the pension scheme to a benevolent fund with a view to convey a message to such players that benefits which may possibly come to them shall be withdrawn if they were to participate in matches organized by ESPL. The BCCI has justified its power and/or authority to prevent