Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 Meeding 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 mandatory injunction directing the BCCI to exercise the power as per clause 8(6) of the Regulations relating to the misconduct. Basically, the suit was filed on the ground that the said N.Srinivasan, who was holding the post of Honorary Treasurer in BCCI and was also the Managing Director of India Cements Limited, should not have been awarded the franchised Indian Premier League rights for ownership of 'Chennai Super Kings' team by the BCCI, as in terms of clause 32 (II) of the rules and regulations, it amounts to an act of indiscipline or misconduct.
c) Along with the said suit, the appellant has also filed O.A.Nos.1041 to 1043 of 2008. The first original application being filed seeking for a temporary injunction restraining the BCCI from permitting Thiru.N.Srinivasan to participate in the General Body Meeting. The second original application being filed for temporary mandatory injunction directing the BCCI to act under clause 32(II) and the third original application being filed for temporary mandatory injunction directing the BCCI to exercise the power under clause 8(6) of the regulation. Apparently, all the above interim prayers are, in effect, the relief sought for in the suit. None of the prayers in the applications were granted and in fact, O.A.No.1041 of 2008, was dismissed even on 26.9.2008 on the ground that it was made at the last minute after the arrangements for the meeting were over and the regulation also provides for penalty to be levied in case of any breach of rules.
d) Subsequently, a set of regulations for players, team officials, managers, umpires and administrators were formulated with effect from 27.9.2008, which include clause 6.2.4., the issue in question. The said clause reads as under:-
"6.2.4.No Administrators shall have, directly, or indirectly, any commercial interest in the matches or events conducted by the Board excluding events like IPL or Champions League, Twenty20."

e) Dr.A.C.Muthiah, the appellant herein, again approached this Court by filing another suit in C.S.No.1167 of 2008 for a declaration that clause 6.2.4 of the regulations insofar as it excludes the "IPL and Champions T 20 League" is illegal and opposed to public policy. The said suit was also filed for permanent injunction restraining the second respondent, N.Srinivasan, from functioning as the Secretary of the BCCI and for a mandatory permanent injunction directing the BCCI not to permit N.Srinivasan from contesting for any of the posts of Office bearers. Pending the suit, he also filed O.A.Nos.1299 and 1300 of 2008 and A.No.5740 of 2008. The first original application was filed with a prayer to suspend the amendment to clause 6.2.4, the second application being for temporary injunction restraining N.Srinivasan from functioning as Secretary and the third application being for mandatory temporary injunction directing the BCCI not to permit the said N.Srinivasan from contesting for any of the posts of Office bearer in future. The interim applications 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.1041 of 2008 in C.S.No.930 of 2008 were dismissed by the learned single Judge by the order under appeal.

Question Nos.2 & 3 :

"Whether the second respondent would be disentitled from participating in the General Body Meeting convened to elect the office bearers ?" and "Whether the second respondent should be suspended from the post of Honorary Secretary ?"

10. The appellant, while preferring the suit in C.S.No.930 of 2008, also filed an application in O.A.No.1041 of 2008 praying for an injunction restraining the BCCI from permitting the second respondent, N.Srinivasan, to participate in the General Body Meeting scheduled at Mumbai on 27.09.2008 or any other subsequent date for the election of new office bearers of BCCI and also to contest for the post of secretary or any other post in the BCCI. The learned Judge has rejected the said application on two grounds, viz., as per sub-clause 1 of clause 6.2. of the Regulations for Players, Team Officials, Managers and Administrators of BCCI, six months time had been given to the President of BCCI to determine the allegations brought to his notice and in the event the Administrator committing any default against the spirit of the regulations, the BCCI has been authorised to levy a fine of Rs.1 lakh to Rs.5 lakhs and/or debar the Administrator from holding such position for a minimum period of one year and maximum of three years. This order has not been questioned any further. Hence, the second respondent had participated in the General Body Meeting and ultimately, he was also elected as Secretary. Under the said circumstances, the appellant/plaintiff in his subsequent suit in C.S.No.1167 of 2008 has also prayed for a similar relief in O.A.No.1300 of 2008 for a temporary injunction restraining N.Srinivasan from functioning as Secretary of BCCI.