Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. These are two cross appeals against ex parte order dated 21.9.2013 passed by Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, the learned ADJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.567/2013 titled Lalit Kumar Modi vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. The first appeal FAO 370/2013 has been filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India while as the second appeal FAO 373/2013 has been filed by Lalit Kumar Modi & Ors.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that Lalit Kumar Modi filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against BCCI making Mr. Arun Jaitley, Mr. Chirayu Ameen, Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, members of the Disciplinary Committee, Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya, Mr. Sanjay Patel and Mr. N. Srinivasan as defendants. The case which was setup in the plaint was that Lalit Kr. Modi is an administrator of BCCI and he sought a declaration that the decision of the Working Committee of the BCCI dated 2.6.2013 and 10.6.2013 appointing Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya to look after the day to day affairs of the BCCI is illegal and contrary to BCCI Rules and Regulations. Similar declaration was sought with regard to the appointment of Mr. Sanjay Patel as the Honorary Secretary of the BCCI. It was further prayed that the notice dated 2.9.2013 issued by Mr. Sanjay Patel is illegal, nonest and contrary to the BCCI rules and regulations and accordingly a permanent injunction against the said notice was sought. It was also prayed that a permanent injunction order be passed restraining Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya, Mr. Sanjay Patel and Mr. N. Srinivasan from discharging the function as president and secretary of the BCCI. The suit was filed on 19.9.2013 before the court of learned District Judge and it was marked to learned ADJ on 21.9.2013. Along with suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed wherein an ex parte ad interim injunction from restraining the BCCI from holding the Special General Body Meeting (in short „SGM‟) on 25.9.2013 was sought and similarly, an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the suit, that is, Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya, Mr. Sanjay Patel and Mr. N. Srinivasan from discharging their function as president and secretary of the BCCI was also prayed for.

7. I have heard Mr. Sunderam, the learned senior counsel for BCCI and Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, the learned senior counsel for Lalit Kr. Modi.

8. The rival contentions will be dealt with while considering the points which have been raised herein under :-

MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEAL

9. Dr. Singhvi and Mr. Tripathi, the learned senior counsel appearing for Lalit Kr. Modi though have contended that their appeal against the rejection of the part of their interim order sought by them is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC but there is no provision by virtue of which the appeal of the BCCI against the ex parte ad interim injunction order can be said to be maintainable because such an appeal would be maintainable only after the trial court has failed to decide the application of the BCCI under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC or the application filed by Lalit Kr. Modi under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC within the statutory period of 30 days. In support of his contention Dr. Singhvi has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan & Ors.; (2000) 7 SCC 695 wherein it has been observed in para 21 as under :-

VALIDITY OF THE SGM

15. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Modi has contended that the meeting which is to take place on 25.9.2013 is not a meeting called by a duly authorized person. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of the court to the constitution of BCCI and referred to Rule 17 (1) (a) and host of other rules, which cannot be referred to in detail for paucity of time to contend that an SGM may be convened by the Secretary on a directive of the President. It was contended that the notice of the meeting dated 2.9.2013 was issued under the signatures of Mr. Sanjay Patel who was not validly appointed by the President. It was contended by Dr. Singhvi that so far as Mr. N. Srinivasan who was the elected president is concerned, BCCI had issued an official press statement that he is dissociating himself from the functioning of the office of the President and the day-to-day functioning of the BCCI was to be looked after by Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya and therefore it is not clear as to who has authorized Mr. Sanjay Patel to have convened the meeting on 25.9.2013. The learned counsel in this regard has also raised an objection that Mr. Sanjay Patel was appointed as the honorary Secretary of the BCCI in the minutes of the meeting which had taken place on 10.06.2013 at New Delhi while there is a letter dated 6.6.2013 which shows the minutes of 10.06.2013 recorded as under:

"The members approved the names proposed by Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya. It is hereby resolved that Mr. Sanjay Patel and Mr. Ravi Savant be appointed as the Hon. Secretary and Hon. Treasurer respectively to fill up the vacancies caused by the resignation of Mr. Sanjay Jagdale and Mr. Ajay Shirke respectively. It is further resolved that Mr.N.Srinivasan in exercise of his rights as per the Memorandum and Rules and Regulations of BCCI will issue the appointment letters to Mr.Sanjay Patel and Mr.Ravi Savant as Hon.Secretary and Hon.Treasurer respectively."