Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) Shri Prithipal Singh alleges to be continuing as the President of Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (hereinafter referred to as H.P.C.A.) since 1980, and therefore sought directions against defendant No. I, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, to accept him as nominee of H.P.C.A., being its president.

(2) In short the case of 'the plaintiff is that the defendant 'No. 1, a registered body, was established with the object of controlling the game of cricket in India. It has its own Rules and Regulations, according to which various Associations in India who are Full Members of the said Board have to send one representative on the Board of defendant No. 1. H.P.C.A. is the "Full Member" of defendant No. 1. Plaintiff being President had been representing the Hpca as its representative. Being its president, all the correspondence had been exchanged between defendant No. 1 with the plaintiff in pursuance to the circulars issued by defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. On 31st July, 1991, plaintiff attended the meeting of the defendant No. 1 as the representative of the H.P.C.A. Defendant No. 4 was earlier the Vice- president of the said Association, but subsequently claimed to be the president of Hpca, which fact the plaintiff has denied. News item was also given wherein it was reported that defendant No. 3 as the president of defendant No. 1 had recognised the claim of defendant No. 4 as president of HPCA. Before acknowledging the claim of defendant No. 4, defendants I to 3 never called upon the plaintiff nor given any reasonable opportunity of being heard. The General Body Meeting of the Board of defendant No. 1 was scheduled to be held on 28th &29th September, 1991, in which election of its office bearers were to take place. On 25.9.91, defendant No. 3 recognised defendant No. 4 as the president of Hpca and allowed him to attend the meeting of the Board of defendant No. 1 as representative of the Hpca to be held on 28th September, 1991. This decision was conveyed to the plaintiff, whereas some members of the Hpca had authorised the plaintiff to represent the Hpca in the meeting to be held by defendant No. 1. It is in this background that the injunction was sought by the plaintiff.