Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Cricket Association Of Bihar vs N. Srinivasan . on 27 February, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
1
OUT TODAY
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.2 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 91 of 2015
In
Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2015
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
N. SRINIVASAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents)
Date : 27/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Nalini Chidambram,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
Mr. Rajat Sehgal,Adv.
Mr. Varun Singh,Adv.
Mr. C. Verma,Adv.
Mr. Puneeth K.G.,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Amol Chitale,Adv.
Mr. Salim Inamdar,Adv.
Ms. Pragya Baghel,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard.
In this petition the petitioner has prayed for initiation of contempt Signature Not Verified proceedings against the respondents for the alleged Digitally signed by Mahabir Singh Date: 2015.02.28 willful disobedience of the directions contained in our judgment 12:15:36 IST Reason:
and order dated 22nd January, 2015 passed in Civil Appeals No.4235 and 4236 of 2014 and Civil Appeal No.1155 of 2015. Apart from 2 alleging breach of the said order the petitioner has also sought an order restraining respondent no.1-N.Srinivasan from attending and/or chairing the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of BCCI scheduled to be held on 2nd March, 2015 or any other subsequent date. The petitioner's case, as set out in the contempt petition, is that although this Court had struck down amendment to Rule 6.2.4 and declared that respondent No.1-N. Srinivasan was not eligible for holding the post of administrator which includes the post of the President of the BCCI, Mr. Srinivasan has in breach of that order presided over the Working Committee Meeting of the BCCI held on 8th February, 2015. The Wording Committee had in that meeting decided to hold an AGM of the BCCI on 2nd March, 2015 to be chaired by respondent no.1 for holding election to various posts in the BCCI including the post of President. It was contended by Mrs. Nalini Chidambram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the chairing of the Working Committee Meeting and participation in the proceedings thereof by respondent no.1 on 8th February, 2015 was tantamount to committing a deliberate breach of the order of this Court, according to which Mr. Srinivasan was not entitled to hold the position of an administrator on account of a conflict of interest which this Court had found between his being the owner of a franchise and his position as President of the BCCI. Mrs. Chidambram contended that since the AGM is scheduled to be held on 2nd March, 2015 and since respondent no.1 proposes to preside over the said meeting also, any such action on his part would itself constitute a further and contumacious breach of the directions issued by this Court which ought to be prevented by a 3 suitable direction to that effect.
When the matter had initially come up for hearing before us on 23rd February, 2015, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appeared for the respondents and sought time to take instructions in the matter. We had, in that view, directed the matter to be listed for orders today. When the matter was taken up today Mr. Sibal made a candid submission on instruction from his clients that although respondent no.1 had presided over the Working Committee Meeting held on 8th February, 2015, the same was not intended to defy the order passed by this Court in any manner whatsoever. It was further submitted that upon introspection and further deliberations the said respondent has realised that his act of presiding over the Working Committee Meeting on 8th February, 2015 was neither proper nor well-advised. Mr. Sibal further states that he has instruction to offer an unconditional apology on behalf of respondent no.1-N. Srinivasan for what has happened in the past and to undertake that Mr. Srinivasan shall neither preside over the AGM, scheduled to be held on 2nd March, 2015 or any future AGM till such time the judgment of this prevents him from doing so, nor participate in any Working Committee or AGM meeting.
Mr. Sibal however submitted that since elections are being conducted on 2nd March, 2015, Tamil Nadu Cricket Association which is one of the voters eligible to vote in the said election will be entitled to exercise its franchise at the said election. Mr. Sibal submits that Mr. Srinivasan may be authorised by Tamil Nadu Cricket Association to cast a vote on its behalf in the said 4 election not because he is the President of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association which capacity may be vulnerable because of the judgment of this Court but simply as an agent/representative authorised to do a specified act on behalf of said Association. He submits that so long as respondent no.1-N.Srinivasan does not participate in the AGM proceedings and so long as the permission is limited to casting of a vote at the election on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association as its nominee, his presence in the meeting for that purpose may not be treated to be in breach of the direction of this Court.
Mrs. Chidambram has reservation about the participation of respondent no.1-N.Srinivasan even to the limited extent of casting a vote as a nominee of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association. We however see no reason to deny to the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association the right to exercise its franchise and to cast a vote at the ensuing election. That exercise is, in our opinion, permissible for the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association can authorise anyone to cast a vote on its behalf including Mr. Srinivasan. If Mr. Srinivasan is nominated for that purpose it will not be because he is the President of the said Association but because the Association can authorise a nominee. Beyond that we do not propose to say anything at this stage or to issue any other direction. In our opinion, since Mr. Srinivasan has at the earliest opportunity and unreservedly offered unconditional apology to this Court for all that has happened on 8th February, 2015 in terms of his presiding over the Working Committee Meeting or his participation in the same, we are inclined to close these 5 proceedings by accepting the said apology. All other questions which were argued at some length by learned counsel for the parties are premature and need not be examined at this stage. In the circumstances, therefore, and while accepting the unconditional apology offered by respondent no.1-N.Srinivasan, we close these proceedings with the observation that if the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association by a specific authorisation issued in favour of respondent no.1-N.Srinivasan authorises him to vote on its behalf in the ensuing election, he shall be free to do so, but his participation shall be limited to the performance of that act alone and no more.
With the above observations, these proceedings are closed and the contempt petition disposed off.
(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(signed order to follow)
6
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 91 of 2015
In
Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2015
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
N. SRINIVASAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard.
In this petition the petitioner has prayed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for the alleged willful disobedience of the directions contained in our judgment and order dated 22nd January, 2015 passed in Civil Appeals No.4235 and 4236 of 2014 and Civil Appeal No.1155 of 2015. Apart from alleging breach of the said order the petitioner has also sought an order restraining respondent no.1-N.Srinivasan from attending and/or chairing the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of BCCI scheduled to be held on 2nd March, 2015 or any other subsequent date. The petitioner's case, as set out in the contempt petition, is that although this Court had struck down amendment to Rule 6.2.4 and declared that respondent No.1-N. Srinivasan was not eligible for holding the post of administrator which includes the post of the President of the BCCI, Mr. Srinivasan has in breach of that order presided over the Working Committee Meeting of the BCCI held on 8th February, 2015. The Wording Committee had in that 7 meeting decided to hold an AGM of the BCCI on 2nd March, 2015 to be chaired by respondent no.1 for holding election to various posts in the BCCI including the post of President. It was contended by Mrs. Nalini Chidambram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the chairing of the Working Committee Meeting and participation in the proceedings thereof by respondent no.1 on 8th February, 2015 was tantamount to committing a deliberate breach of the order of this Court, according to which Mr. Srinivasan was not entitled to hold the position of an administrator on account of a conflict of interest which this Court had found between his being the owner of a franchise and his position as President of the BCCI. Mrs. Chidambram contended that since the AGM is scheduled to be held on 2nd March, 2015 and since respondent no.1 proposes to preside over the said meeting also, any such action on his part would itself constitute a further and contumacious breach of the directions issued by this Court which ought to be prevented by a suitable direction to that effect.
When the matter had initially come up for hearing before us on 23rd February, 2015, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appeared for the respondents and sought time to take instructions in the matter. We had, in that view, directed the matter to be listed for orders today. When the matter was taken up today Mr. Sibal made a candid submission on instruction from his clients that although respondent no.1 had presided over the Working Committee Meeting held on 8th February, 2015, the same was not intended to defy the order passed by this Court in any manner whatsoever. It was further submitted that upon introspection and 8 further deliberations the said respondent has realised that his act of presiding over the Working Committee Meeting on 8th February, 2015 was neither proper nor well-advised. Mr. Sibal further states that he has instruction to offer an unconditional apology on behalf of respondent no.1-N. Srinivasan for what has happened in the past and to undertake that Mr. Srinivasan shall neither preside over the AGM, scheduled to be held on 2nd March, 2015 or any future AGM till such time the judgment of this prevents him from doing so, nor participate in any Working Committee or AGM meeting.
Mr. Sibal however submitted that since elections are being conducted on 2nd March, 2015, Tamil Nadu Cricket Association which is one of the voters eligible to vote in the said election will be entitled to exercise its franchise at the said election. Mr. Sibal submits that Mr. Srinivasan may be authorised by Tamil Nadu Cricket Association to cast a vote on its behalf in the said election not because he is the President of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association which capacity may be vulnerable because of the judgment of this Court but simply as an agent/representative authorised to do a specified act on behalf of said Association. He submits that so long as respondent no.1-N.Srinivasan does not participate in the AGM proceedings and so long as the permission is limited to casting of a vote at the election on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association as its nominee, his presence in the meeting for that purpose may not be treated to be in breach of the direction of this Court.
Mrs. Chidambram has reservation about the participation of 9 respondent no.1-N.Srinivasan even to the limited extent of casting a vote as a nominee of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association. We however see no reason to deny to the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association the right to exercise its franchise and to cast a vote at the ensuing election. That exercise is, in our opinion, permissible for the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association can authorise anyone to cast a vote on its behalf including Mr. Srinivasan. If Mr. Srinivasan is nominated for that purpose it will not be because he is the President of the said Association but because the Association can authorise a nominee. Beyond that we do not propose to say anything at this stage or to issue any other direction. In our opinion, since Mr. Srinivasan has at the earliest opportunity and unreservedly offered unconditional apology to this Court for all that has happened on 8th February, 2015 in terms of his presiding over the Working Committee Meeting or his participation in the same, we are inclined to close these proceedings by accepting the said apology. All other questions which were argued at some length by learned counsel for the parties are premature and need not be examined at this stage.
In the circumstances, therefore, and while accepting the unconditional apology offered by respondent no.1-N.Srinivasan, we close these proceedings with the observation that if the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association by a specific authorisation issued in favour of respondent no.1-N.Srinivasan authorises him to vote on its behalf in the ensuing election, he shall be free to do so, but his participation shall be limited to the performance of that act alone and no more.
10With the above observations, these proceedings are closed and the contempt petition disposed off.
.....................................J. (T.S. THAKUR) .....................................J. (FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA) NEW DELHI DATED 27th February, 2015.