Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(d) Thereafter, on 16 November 2011, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement in terms of Section 16(3) of the Act filed a complaint with the Special Director alleging violation of the Act. In the above complaint, it was alleged that the Board and its Officers had violated the provisions of the Act by receiving or remitting foreign exchange to the tune of about Rs.1314 crores without permission of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) while conducting the second edition of the IPL, thus inviting penalty under Section 13 of the Act. On the basis of the above complaint, on 25 November 2011, all the impugned 11 show cause notices were issued to the Board and its office bearers as well as Executive Officer conducting the IPL tournament. Each of these impugned notices called upon the Board to show cause in respect of a particular conduct/ transaction amounting to violation of the Act and the petitioner was also called upon in each of the notices to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him in his capacity as the President of the Board in terms of Section 42 of the Act. Similar notices are issued to six other persons including Mr.N. Srinivasan, then Secretary, BCCI, Mr.Pandove, then Treasurer, BCCI, Mr.Lalit Modi, Chairman IPL Governing Council, Mr.Ratnakar Shetty, CEO IPL Governing Council, Mr.P.Kannan, Manager, Business and Commercial Services, IPL and Mr.S. Raman, COO, IPL All the impugned show cause notices specifically mentioned that the 4 of 35 upa WP-5305-2013 adjudication of the notices would be in terms of Rule 4 of the Adjudication Rules. Besides, a copy of the complaint dated 16 November 2011 which was the basis of all the notices were also enclosed to each of the impugned 11 notices.

Moreover, the Board is not a body corporate nor is it a firm. Therefore, the Board not being covered by explanation to Section 42 of the Act, no occasion to apply the same for imposition of penalty upon the petitioner can arise. Besides, on merits it was contended that the petitioner was only an honorary President of the Board and that he had no role in conducting the second edition of the IPL in South Africa during the period 10 April 2009 to 24 May 2009. In the reply, it was pointed out that there was an independent sub-committee of the Board to conduct the IPL tournament called Governing Council for IPL of which one Mr.Lalit Modi was the Chairman and all decisions with regard to the conduct of the second edition of IPL were taken by that sub- committee. It also contended that nothing has been pointed out either in the impugned show cause notices or in the complaint to even remotely suggest that the petitioner had any role in the 5 of 35 upa WP-5305-2013 violation of the Act while conducting the second edition of IPL. The petitioner also requested for personal hearing on the above preliminary issue.

(i) BCCI had constituted a separate Committee to administer IPL under the Chairmanship of Mr.Lalit Modi with a separate bank account to be operated by Treasurer, BCCI.
(ii) At the BCCI meeting held on 22 March 2009, after deliberations the only role assigned to the petitioner was to choose the venue of Second IPL, 2009 between United Kingdom and South Africa, and nothing more.

It is clear that the definition is an inclusive one and, therefore, BCCI as well as Governing Council for IPL are persons within the definition of Section 2(u) of the Act.

8. As regards the second contention of the petitioner regarding the specific role of the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has addressed us at length and submitted that the petitioner was in no 10 of 35 upa WP-5305-2013 way in charge of, or was responsible for, opening or operating the bank account of the Governing Council of IPL. It was as far back as on 13 September 2007 that at the meeting of Working Committee of BCCI, BCCI had set up the Governing Council for IPL with Mr.Lalit Modi as the Chairman and a Chief Executive Officer and other staff separately engaged to attend to day to day affairs of IPL and that it was specifically resolved that Indian Premier League will have "a separate bank account to be opened by the Treasurer, BCCI, Mr.N. Srinivasan" and IPL Governing Council shall have a separate office. The said decision was reiterated at the meeting held on 16 December 2007 by approving the amendment to the Rules and Regulations of BCCI. At the meeting of BCCI held on 22 March 2009, when the decision was taken to shift the venue of Second IPL outside India, the only role assigned by BCCI to the petitioner was to select the venue for IPL II (2009), whether it should be United Kingdom or South Africa. The petitioner had not even visited South Africa during the IPL 2009 tournament in South Africa. When Mr.Lalit Modi, Chairman of Governing Council of IPL requested members of BCCI to approve the opening the account of US dollars for expenses for the IPL abroad, the petitioner specifically stated that the account should be opened after seeking clearance from RBI and that the account would be operated by Honorary Treasurer Mr.M.P. Pandove. The members also accepted the above observations of the petitioner. It is, therefore, vehemently submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner can in no way be held to be incharge of or responsible for any alleged violations of FEMA on the ground that RBI permissions/clearances were not obtained as required under FEMA.