Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
Dr. A.C. Muthiah
Versus
The Board of Control Cricket in India, Rep. By its President, Chennai & Another
O.S.A.Nos.226 to 229 of 2009
Decided On : 24-03-2010
BCCI - Dispute over participation in General Body Meeting and IPL franchise rights - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Regulations of BCCI - Misconduct of office bearers - Exclusion of commercial interest in matches or events - Suit maintainability - Disentitlement of office bearer from participating in meeting - Suspension of office bearer - Challenge to regulations for IPL and Champions League Twenty20 - Mandatory injunction to appoint Commissioner for preliminary enquiry - Prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience - Dismissal of appeals
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the entitlement of an office bearer to participate in a General Body Meeting for the election of new office bearers of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the award of franchised Indian Premier League (IPL) rights. The appellant filed suits and applications seeking injunctions and mandatory injunctions against the BCCI and the second respondent, N. Srinivasan, alleging misconduct and indiscipline.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suits filed by the appellant were not maintainable as they were filed in the individual capacity and not in the capacity of an Administrator. The court rejected the application for injunction restraining the second respondent from participating in the General Body Meeting and from functioning as Secretary of BCCI. The court also dismissed the challenge to the regulations for IPL and Champions League Twenty20 and the request for a mandatory injunction to appoint a Commissioner for preliminary enquiry.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the maintainability of the suits, the entitlement of the second respondent to participate in the General Body Meeting, the suspension of the second respondent from the post of Honorary Secretary, the challenge to the regulations for IPL and Champions League Twenty20, and the entitlement to a mandatory injunction for preliminary enquiry against the second respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suits were not maintainable as they were filed in the individual capacity and not in the capacity of an Administrator. The court also found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience to warrant the grant of injunctions and mandatory injunctions. The court emphasized the need for a strong prima facie case and irreparable injury before granting interim relief.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and the connected motions, and no costs were awarded.
D. Murugesan, J.
All the above appeals question the common order dated 13.07.2009 made in O.A.Nos.1299 and 1300 of 2008 and A.No.5740 of 2008 in C.S.No.1167 of 2008 and O.A.No.1042 of 2008 in C.S.No.930 of 2008. The issues involved in all these appeals are common and hence, the appeals are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.
2. The controversy relates to the question as to whether the second respondent would be entitled to participate in the General Body Meeting that was scheduled at Mumbai on 27.09.2008 or any other subsequent dates for the election of new office bearers of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), in view of the fact that he was awarded the franchised Indian Premier League rights for the ownership of Chennai Super Kings team by BCCI, even while he was the Managing Director of India Cements Limited and he was the Honorary Treasurer of BCCI at the time when such franchise was given. The further controversy relates to clause 2. 4 of the regulations framed by the BCCI thereby making an exclusion of events like Indian Premier League (IPL) or Champions League, Twenty20 tournament, for the Administrator to have directly or indirectly any commercial interest in the matches or events conducted by the Board.
3. For the disposal of the appeals, some of the following facts are relevant:
a) The BCCI is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 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 and to encourage the formation of State, Regional or other Cricket Associations and the organisation of inter-state and other tournaments. It is governed by a set of rules and regulations. The full members of BCCI numbering 30 includes Tamil Nadu Cricket Association as well, apart from various such associations from other States. It also includes Railways Sports Promotion Board. It has associate members also. The rules and regulations provide for composition of the Board, viz., a President, 5 Vice-Presidents (one from each zone), an Honorary Secretary, an Honarary Joint Secretary and an Honorary Treasurer. Further, a Member, Associate Member or an Affiliate Member of the Board shall also have one representative. The rules and regulations provide for the powers and duties of the Board. They provide for a working committee with demarcation of powers and duties. The constitution of the working committee consists of President, Honorary Secretary, Honorary Joint Secretary and Honorary Treasurer. The duties of the office bearers of the board are also defined. In terms of regulation 32, the misconduct of the players, umpires, team officials, administrators, referees and selectors are defined and in addition, the procedure as to how the misconduct should be dealt with is also defined. In respect of any dispute arises as to the legality of the election of office bearers, Vice-Presidents or members elected on the Working Committee, Standing Committee or the Committees, between the members of the Board interse and so on, a provision for arbitration is also contemplated under regulation 37. Thus, Rules and Regulations contemplate the overall regulations and control of all activities by the Board members. A mechanisam is also provided to take action against erring members including the umpires, players, etc.
b) Dr.A.C.Muthiah, the appellant/plaintiff filed C.S.No.930 of 2008 for a permanent injunction restraining the BCCI from permitting Mr.N.Srinivasan, the second respondent herein, to participate in the General Body Meeting scheduled in Mumbai on 27.09.2008 or any other subsequent date for the election of new office bearers. He also sought for a judgment and decree of mandatory injunction directing the BCCI to act under clause 32 (II) of the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations by appointing a Commissioner to make a preliminary enquiry against the said N.Srinivasan. He also prayed for a mand
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
