Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1242
High Court of Delhi
V.K. SHALI, J.
Lalit Kumar Modi Through His Constituted Attorney Shri Mehmood M Abdi & Another
Versus
The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Others
F.A.O. Nos. 373, 370 of 2013
Decided On : 24-09-2013
For the Appellants:A.M. Singhvi, Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advs. With Ravi Sikri, S.S. Hora, Abhishek Singh, Roor Ray, Ms. Neha Bhatnagar, Gaurav Goyal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. With P.R. Raman, Mrs. Akhila Premkumar, Ms. Rohini Musa, Ms. S.P. Arthi, Zafar Inayat, Govind Singh, Advocates.
The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient reasons for granting ex parte injunctions and ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
EX PARTE INJUNCTION - BCCI Suit - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC - The court discussed the maintainability of the appeal, validity of the SGM, and grant of ex parte stay. The court found that the ex parte injunction was improperly granted without sufficient reasons and caused potential irreparable loss. It also found that the SGM was validly convened and the notice provided an opportunity for the appellant to explain his conduct. The court allowed the appeal by BCCI and dismissed the appeal by Mr. Modi.
Fact of the Case:
Lalit Kumar Modi filed a suit against BCCI seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the appointment of certain individuals and restraining them from discharging their functions. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted restraining BCCI from holding a meeting.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ex parte injunction was improperly granted without sufficient reasons and caused potential irreparable loss. It also found that the SGM was validly convened and the notice provided an opportunity for the appellant to explain his conduct.
Issues: Maintainability of the appeal, validity of the SGM, grant of ex parte stay
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ex parte injunction was improperly granted without sufficient reasons and caused potential irreparable loss. It also found that the SGM was validly convened and the notice provided an opportunity for the appellant to explain his conduct.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal by BCCI and dismissed the appeal by Mr. Modi. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 30.9.2013.
V.K. Shali, J.
1. These are two cross appeals against ex parte order dated 21.9.2013 passed by Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, the learned ADJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.567/2013 titled Lalit Kumar Modi vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. The first appeal FAO 370/2013 has been filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India while as the second appeal FAO 373/2013 has been filed by Lalit Kumar Modi & Ors.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that Lalit Kumar Modi filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against BCCI making Mr. Arun Jaitley, Mr. Chirayu Ameen, Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, members of the Disciplinary Committee, Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya, Mr. Sanjay Patel and Mr. N. Srinivasan as defendants. The case which was setup in the plaint was that Lalit Kr. Modi is an administrator of BCCI and he sought a declaration that the decision of the Working Committee of the BCCI dated 2.6.2013 and 10.6.2013 appointing Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya to look after the day to day affairs of the BCCI is illegal and contrary to BCCI Rules and Regulations. Similar declaration was sought with regard to the appointment of Mr. Sanjay Patel as the Honorary Secretary of the BCCI. It was further prayed that the notice dated 2.9.2013 issued by Mr. Sanjay Patel is illegal, nonest and contrary to the BCCI rules and regulations and accordingly a permanent injunction against the said notice was sought. It was also prayed that a permanent injunction order be passed restraining Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya, Mr. Sanjay Patel and Mr. N. Srinivasan from discharging the function as president and secretary of the BCCI. The suit was filed on 19.9.2013 before the court of learned District Judge and it was marked to learned ADJ on 21.9.2013. Along with suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed wherein an ex parte ad interim injunction from restraining the BCCI from holding the Special General Body Meeting (in short “SGM”) on 25.9.2013 was sought and similarly, an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the suit, that is, Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya, Mr. Sanjay Patel and Mr. N. Srinivasan from discharging their function as president and secretary of the BCCI was also prayed for.
3. The aforesaid suit and application are purported to have been filed by Lalit Kumar Modi through one Mr. Mehmood M. Abdi, a lawyer who is stated to be the Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff. He has not only signed and verified the pleadings but also filed supportive affidavit to the pleadings.
4. The learned ADJ after noticing the submissions of the learned counsel for Mr. Modi passed a cryptic order holding as under :-
“The plaintiff has prima facie shown the notice of the SGM has been issued without appropriate authority. He has also shown that he shall suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money by the report of the Disciplinary Committee being considered in an unauthorized meeting. The balance of convenience thus lies in the favour of the plaintiff. The defendants are thus hereby restrained from holding the SGM scheduled for 25.9.2013.”
5. So far as prayer (b) with regard to restraining by way of ad interim injunction, the three defendants to the suit, namely, Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya, Mr. Sanjay Patel and Mr. N. Srinivasan is concerned, it was observed that no immediate injury is likely to be suffered by the plaintiff and accordingly, no ex parte injunction was passed and the matter was adjourned to 30.9.2013 with a direction to the plaintiff to comply with the provision of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC by 23.9.2013.
6. The two cross appeals, one by BCCI raising an objection to the very grant of ex parte ad interim injunction on the ground that by passing the aforesaid ex parte ad interim injunction, the very holding of the meeting, i.e. SGM by the BCCI has been brought to a grinding halt. Similarly, the cross appeal has been filed by Lalit Kr. Modi o
