Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Societies Registration Act vs The Cricket Association Of Bengal & Ors on 17 December, 2019
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
1
16.12.2019
srm
C.O. No. 3776 of 2019
Vijay Sports Club, a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1961
Vs.
The Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Saptangshu Basu,
Mr. Kallol Bose,
Mr. Souradipta Banerjee,
Mr. Samik Sarkar
...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sandip Kumar Bhattacharyya
Mr. Suman Basu,
Ms. Debanwita Pramanik
...for the Opposite Parties Nos.2 to 5.
Affidavit‐of‐service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.
None appears on behalf of the opposite party No.1 despite service.
Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 are represented.
The petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.1587 of 2018. The title
suit was filed by the petitioner, a registered Society under the Societies
Registrar Act, 1961 through its President Sri Ashoke Kumar Chowdhury,
before the learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. The
petitioner was favoured with an interim order of injunction, ex parte, by
an order dated December 5, 2018 by which the learned Court below held
that considering the prima facie case of the plaintiff, the balance of
2
convenience and inconvenience and urgency of the situation, the
defendant No.1 (that is the Cricket Association of Bengal) was restrained
by way of an interim order of injunction to recognise anybody including
the defendant No.2 that is Vijay Sports Club, a Trust, the opposite party
No.2 and to allow anybody other than the plaintiff for participating in
the cricket tournament to be organised by the defendant No.1 in the
season 2018‐19, till January 2019.
Aggrieved by the said order, three appeals had been preferred by
the opposite party No.2 before this Court which were registered as
F.M.A. No.568 of 2019, F.M.A. No. 569 of 2019 and F.M.A. No.570 of
2019. By a judgement and order dated June 17, 2019, ex parte order of
injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner was set aside on
the ground that the ex parte order in the said case ought to have been
granted upon hearing the rival contentions of the parties, inasmuch as,
the suit was not of such a nature that there was immediate need for
protection, or else there would be irreparable damage to the subject
matter of the suit. The said three appeals were disposed of with a
direction upon the learned Court below to dispose of the pending
applications within a period of three months from the date of the order.
3
It was further recorded that the observations in the said judgement and
order should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Thereafter, the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 filed an application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the
learned Court below for rejection of the plaint on the grounds mentioned
therein. As per the directions of this Court, the application under Order
VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the application for
temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff were taken up for
consideration by the learned Court below on September 20, 2019. During
the hearing of the applications, the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 referred to
a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated March 14, 2019 and the
observations made therein. For convenience, relevant portion of the said
order is quoted below:
"When the matter was taken up today, Mr. P.S. Narasimha,
learned Amicus Curiae, has pointed out two issues before this
Court viz., (a) On is regarding application for rectification of the
Registered BCCI Constitution and (b) another is regarding
applications for release of funds.
As far as issue (a) is concerned, we consider it appropriate to
request Mr. Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae to look into this
matter and make appropriate recommendations to the Committee
of Administrators (CoA). In case the parties are not satisfied with
those recommendations, they may approach this Court for passing
appropriate orders.
As far as issue (b) is concerned, it is pointed out that certain
applications for release of funds have been filed by the Cricket
Association of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Saurashtra,
4
Himachal Pradesh and Keral and some others. We request Mr.
Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae to look into this matter and
make appropriate recommendations to the Committee of
Administrators (CoA) before the next date of hearing.
Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Committee of Administrators, states that it will take
adequate/appropriate steps to protect the Pune Stadium of
Maharashtra Cricket Association and discharge and discharge the
liability in respect thereof.
By consent of all the parties, Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Amicus
Curiae, is appointed by this Court to act as a Mediator in relation
to any dispute that might arise in the instant interlocutory
applications pending before us. Fee of the learned Mediator shall
be paid by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
Till Mr. Narasimha, leaned Amicus Curiae, submits a report, we
consider it desirable that no Court/Tribunal in India shall
entertain or proceed with any matter pertaining to BCCI or any
State Cricket Association (s) involved."
On behalf of the petitioner, it was urged before the Court that, in
view of the report already submitted by the learned amicus curiae, there
was no impediment to dispose of the pending applications in the suit.
Upon hearing the rival contentions of the parties, the leaned Court came
to the conclusion that the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court operated as
an embargo and in view of the order dated March 14, 2019, the learned
Court was not in a position to proceed with the hearing of the
applications. The learned Court was pleased to adjourn the hearing of
the applications till further orders were passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in this regard.
5
Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner, submits that the interim order of
injunction was vacated by the Hon'ble Division Bench on the ground
that this was a case where rival parties wanted to send up their players
to the CAB and in such a situation whether the injunction should be
granted or not was in the opinion of the Hon'ble Division Bench to be
decided by the learned Court below upon hearing the rival contentions.
He further submitted that in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
dated March 14, 2019, an embargo was imposed on Courts and Tribunals
from entertaining any matter in which the Board of Control for Cricket
in India (hereinafter referred to as the BCCI) or any State Cricket
Association were involved, but such embargo must be read in the
context and in connection with the lis involved before the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014, that is, the functioning,
administration election, franchisees etc. and also funds to be released to
the State Cricket Association and other related issues involving State
Associations and BCCI. According to Mr. Basu, which local club in
Calcutta would be recognised by the Cricket Association of Bengal
(hereinafter referred to as the CAB) was not a lis which was pending to
6
be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court ultimately in Civil Appeal
No.4235 of 2014.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
defendant/opposite Nos.2 to 5, submits that the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court was clear and unambiguous, that no Court or Tribunal in
India shall entertain or proceed with any matter pertaining to the BCCI
or involvement of the State Cricket Associations. According to Mr.
Bhattacharyya, as the plaintiff itself had impleaded the CAB as a
defendant the suit could not proceed in view of the restrictions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court. Mr. Bhattacharyya further submits that the suit
itself had become infructuous as the prayers (e), (f) and (g) of the plaint
were no more available to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the
opposite party No.2/defendant No.2 had already sent up their players in
the Under‐18 Game, as the CAB had recognised the opposite party No.2
as the club to send up their players. Mr. Bhattacharyya urged that if the
petitioner wanted any clarification with regard to the interpretation of
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court vis‐à‐vis its claim in the suit, the
petitioner/plaintiff should file an appropriate application before the
Hon'ble Apex Court. He finally submitted that the players who are
under the umbrella of the plaintiff/petitioner could participate in the
7
trials and if they were successful they may be represented through the
opposite party No.2. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits a report prepared by
the Assistant Registrar of the Hon'ble Apex Court to show that several
parties/stakeholders had filed interlocutory applications before the
Hon'ble Apex Court seeking clarification and the petitioner ought to do
the same. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that as per the Memorandum of
Association of the plaintiff/petitioner, the plaintiff/petitioner was not
properly represented in the suit. Mr. Bhattacharyya finally closes his
argument by referring to the order dated December 9, 2019 of the
Hon'ble Apex Court and submits that the main civil appeal has been
kept for hearing in the monthly list of January, 2020. Mr. Bhattacharyya
also refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, by which only
pending arbitration matters were allowed to be continued by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as an exception but the Hon'ble Apex Court did not
make any such exception with regard to any civil suits or matters
pending before any other Tribunals.
Heard the rival contentions of the parties. Admittedly, the ad
interim order of injunction passed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner
was vacated by this Court and the learned Court below was directed to
hear out the application within three months from date i.e. June 17,
8
2019. The petitioners were willing to contest application for temporary
injunction on merits before the learned Court below. The opposite party
Nos.2 to 4 filed an application for rejection of the plaint. As per the
direction of this Court both the applications were taken up for
consideration by the learned Judge on September 20, 2019 and based on
the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court by the order dated
March 14, 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014, the learned Court
below adjourned the hearing of the applications till the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
The embargo imposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been
quoted hereinabove. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it was
desirable that no Court or Tribunal in India should entertain or proceed
with any matter pertaining to BCCI or any State Cricket Associations.
Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014 filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court arose
out of a Public Interest Petition filed in the Bombay High Court by the
Cricket Association of Bihar. In the said PIL before the Bombay High
Court, serious allegations of betting and spot fixing in IPL, 2013 had
been made against Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan as the alleged Team
Principal of Chennai Super Kings and also allegations of betting had
been made against the part‐team owner of IPL Franchisee, Rajasthan
9
Royals. Allegations were made that the team owner of Chennai Super
Kings was India Cements Limited of which Mr. N. Srinivasan, the
president of the BCCI was the Managing Director and Mr. Gurunath
Meiyappan was the son‐in‐law of Mr. N. Srinivasan. It appears that by
an order dated March 28, 2014 Mr. Sunil Gavaskar was appointed by the
Court to function as an interim President of BCCI in relation to IPL 2014.
Certain restrictions were imposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the
employees of Indian Cements Limited and its associates. The findings
of the IPL probe‐Committee was kept for further consideration. The
Hon'ble Apex Court had not prevented any player or team from
participating in the IPL 2014. Subsequently, in relation to these
allegations Justice Mudgal Committee was constituted by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and thereafter Justice Lodha Committee was constituted
with former Chief Justice Lodha as its Chairman.
The Committee was requested to examine and make suitable
recommendations on the aspects as laid down in the relevant paragraphs
of the Order of the Supreme Court dated 22/01/2015 [BCCI v. CRICKET
ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR (2015)3 SCC 251]
a) Amendments considered necessary to the memorandum of
association of BCCI and the prevalent rules and regulations for
10
streamlining the conduct of elections to different posts/officers in BCCI
including conditions of eligibility and disqualifications, if any, for
candidates wanting to contest the election for such posts including the
office of the President of BCCI.
b) Amendments to the memorandum of association, and rules
and regulations considered necessary to provide a mechanism for
resolving conflict of interest should such a conflict arise.
c) Amendments, if any, to the memorandum of association and the
rules and regulations of BCCI to carry out the recommendations of the
Probe Committee headed by Justice Mudgal.
d) Any other recommendation with or without suitable
amendments of the relevant rules and regulations, which the Committee
may consider necessary to make with a view to preventing sporting
frauds, conflict of interests streamlining the working of BCCI to make it
more responsive to the expectations of the public at large and to bring
transparency in practices and procedures followed by BCCI.
By a Report dated 18/12/2015, the Lodha Committee had, inter alia,
recommended several steps and measures which include: ‐
11
• The policy of 'One State‐One Member‐One Vote so that each
State could have equal representation
• There would be no place for multiple associations from a
single State. Each state should be represented by a State Cricket
Association duly recognised by the BCCI and that Association should be
Full Members.
The Committee in this regard had given the view that it must be
left to the BCCI to decide which of the 3 associations from Gujarat and
Maharashtra would be taken to represent the entire State, and the
remaining 2 associations from each State would become Associate
Members, who would however continue to field teams for competitions
as they had done in the past. Equally, in States where there were
disputes concerning the appropriate governing body, it was best left to
BCCI or the Court (as may be the case) to decide which association
would represent the State.
• The categories of Affiliate and Future Members were to be
removed and only Full members and Associate Members would remain,
the former with voting rights (one vote each) and the latter without.
12
• BCCI office bearer would work for not more than two
continuous terms. This recommendation was accompanied by fixing the
retirement age at 70.No Minister or a Government servant can become
an office bearer.
• President of the BCCI could not hold his post for more than
two years.
• An independent and sovereign governing body to be made
available for IPL
• Chapter 5 of the Report recommended two initiatives, namely,
1.An Association of Players
2. A strict set of procedures to govern players' agents. • Appointment of retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a former Chief Justice of a High Court as the Ombudsman of the BCCI • Appointment of an Electoral Officer for BCCI, whose decision on any subject relating to elections would be final and conclusive.
• The players and public ought to have access to all Rules, Regulations, Codes and Instructions of BCCI in English and Hindi and the same should be uploaded on the BCCI website 13 • Resources of the BCCI must be used for development of the game and financial prudence must be exercised to avoid unnecessary expenditure. Auditors engaged by the BCCI should be tasked to not only undertake financial analysis but also a performance audit.
• The Committee recommended to the Legislature to bring BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act as a public authority.
• The Committee recommended that match fixing should be made punishable by law • The Committee proposed to legalize betting. It also recommended that BCCI Officials shall disclose their assets to the Governing Board, so that they could be certain about the non‐ involvement of BCCI officials in betting.
These recommendations find place in the judgment of Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2016)8 SCC 535 and have been accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Several orders have been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The lis before the Hon'ble Apex Court as it appears, are with regard to the above issues at present and implementation of the recommendations. Pursuant to the Justice Lodha Committee's report, as it appears, 14 recommendations were also made for amending the Constitution and/or rectification of the Constitution of the BCCI as also recognition of some of the State Cricket Associations to bring transparency in their functions.
By a letter dated November 25, 2018, addressed to the Secretary General, Registry, Supreme Court of India, Mr Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae in the ongoing matter communicated his unwillingness to continue as Amicus Curiae due to certain unavoidable personal circumstances.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed Mr. P.S Narasimha as the Amicus Curiae on 17.01.2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.03.2019 appointed P.S Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae to act as a Mediator in relation to any dispute that might arise in the interlocutory applications pending before the Apex Court.
The Amicus Curiae submitted his Report up to 09.05.2019, wherein a number of issues have been resolved with regard to the State Cricket Associations. It appears from the Report that Bengal Cricket Association was compliant on all respects except for one, i.e. it had not given voting rights to international players in its General Body. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.05.2019 took on record the Report of the Learned Amicus Curiae.
15
I accept the contention of Mr. Basu that the embargo imposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court was in relation to these matters for which the learned amicus curiae had to file a further report and those related to the functioning and affairs of BCCI, its constitution election, IPL match, governing body of IPL etc. constitution of the State Cricket Associations, and release of funds to the State Cricket Association by the BCCI. In this case, the suit is with regard to recognition of two rival clubs, one is the society and the other is the trust both known as Vijay Sports Club. Vijoy Sports Club, a Trust was allegedly recognised by the BCCI as per submission made by Mr. Bhattacharyya.
The reliefs claimed in the suit is set out below:‐ "The plaintiff, therefore, prays for decree for:
(a) Leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC;
(b) Leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC;
(c) Declaration that the plaintiff being a registered society is only entitled to represent Vijay Sports Club for all practical purposes and also to represent before the respective bodies including the defendant no.1 herein;
(d) Declaration that the defendant nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 being the Trustees of the purported trust is not entitled to use the name of Vijay Sports Club and/or to represent the plaintiff club to the defendant no.1 or any other authority or authorities;
(e) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1, their men and agents and/or permitting the said Trust to represent Vijay Sports Club and/or to allow them to participate in the 16 cricket tournaments (2nd Division) to be organized by the defendant no.1 for the ensuing cricket season 2018‐2019.
(f) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 to recognize anybody as Vijay Sports Club other than the plaintiff for participating in the cricket tournament for them for the ensuing cricket season 2018‐2019;
(g) Temporary injunction in terms of prayer (e) & (f) above;
(h) Attachment;
(i) Receiver;
(j) Costs & Advocate's fees;
(k) Commision;
(l) Such other relief or reliefs as the plaintiff is entitled to in law and equity."
The issues to be decided by the learned Civil Court were whether Vijay Sport Club, the society or Vijay Sport Club, the trust, would be the officially recognised club by the CAB for sending players to the under‐13, under‐18 and 2nd Division cricket tournaments to be organised by the CAB in West Bengal. Thus the learned Court below misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the Civil Suit could not proceed in view of the embargo of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
With the above observations, I set aside the order dated September 20, 2019. With due respect to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the restrictions imposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in my humble view, does not touch the issues involved between the plaintiff and the defendant and the learned Judge, 17 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta is requested to dispose of the said applications pending before it under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 and application for temporary injunction within one month from the date of communication of this order.
On the prayer of Mr. Bhattacharyya the opposite party No.5 is at liberty to file the written objection to the application for temporary injunction in the Court below by serving a copy to the learned conducting Advocate of the plaintiff in the Civil Court.
This revisional application is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)