Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Ex-BCCI President’s Plea

Source : Indlaw

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court today delivered a split verdict on a petition filed by former BCCI President AC Muthiah challenging the amendment made in BCCI Rules to enable N. Srinivasan to contest election for the post of BCCI secretary. 

Justice JM Panchal dismissed the petition while Justice Gyan Sudha Misra allowed the petition filed by Mr. Muthiah and declared the amendment made in BCCI Rules to favour Mr N. Srinivasan as null and void and discriminatory. 

Mr. Srinivasan has stakes in Chennai Super Kings, one of the teams participating in IPL tournaments and the BCCI Rules did not permit a person having stakes in any other tournament affiliated to BCCI to contest the election. The rule was amended just to favour Mr. Srinivasan so that he may contest for the post of BCCI secretary, the petitioner contended. 

Petitioner has also contended that the amendment was arbitrary and illegal and therefore it should be quashed. 

The case shall now be heard afresh by a larger bench which may also have a relook at the earlier Supreme Court judgment which had declared that BCCI is not a state under Article 12 of the Constitution. 

The two-judge bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate bench.

Find the copy of the Judgment in A.C. Muthaih v Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr.

Delhi High Court on Complimentary Match Passes

Source : Times of India

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA) to issue only 10,000 complimentary passes for each of the four World Cup cricket matches to be played at the 41,000-capacity Ferozeshah Kotla stadium. 

Justice Sunil Gaur said: "DDCA should not issue more than 10,000 complimentary passes in each of the matches been played on different dates in Delhi. Remaining passes for tomorrow's (Thursday) match should be made online by evening for general public who want to book it," the court clarified while hearing a case filed by Jai Karan Singh, one of DDCA's oldest members, who had challenged the "arbitrary ways" of the association's executive committee in issuing complimentary tickets and sought a ceiling on it. 

"A total of 3,000 passes should be kept at the stadium gate so that match viewers can buy from there on the day of match also," Justice Gaur directed, adding that in future DDCA should sell 30,000 tickets online and at general outlets throughout Delhi. 

"Five thousand tickets should be sent to various banks in Delhi so that the cricket lovers can buy them there," the order says, adding the tickets of all rates should be available online. 

Singh had contended that the executive committee members issued free passes "at their whim and fancy for getting personal benefits not connected with the promotion of game of cricket". They said selling these tickets at a time when the cricket association was already running at a loss could have generated major revenue. 

In its reply, the executive committee denied issuing free passes and said it was only in response to certain "firm commitments". 

The committee also defended giving free tickets to officials of the Delhi government, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, traffic police and other civic agencies, saying they had to be "rewarded" in some way for their cooperation and support in holding the matches. 

The case will come up for hearing on April 28. 

The Kotla will host four matches during the World Cup: South Africa vs West Indies (Feb 24), West Indies vs Netherlands (Feb 28), Kenya vs Canada (Mar 7) and India vs Netherlands (March 9).

No Unauthorised Broadcast of ICC World Cup Matches : Delhi High Court

Justice Gita Mittal

Source : Indlaw

The Delhi High Court today restrained around 144 cable operators across the country from telecasting the ongoing cricket World Cup as they were unauthorisedly accessing signals of ESPN Software India Pvt Ltd (ESIPL) and showing it to the viewer. 

Justice Gita Mittal said that after this order, anyone found showing the telecast of cricket match will be prosecuted under the contempt of court. 

'Anyone showing the broadcast of ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 through any unauthorised means or any other channel will be held for contempt of court and liable for prosecution.' Justice Mittal said. 

The court was hearing a petition filed by ESIPL, the company seeking an order to restrain cable operators from unauthorisedly broadcasting the tournament. 

The ICC Cricket World Cup, being co-hosted by India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, is being telecast on ESPN, STAR Sports and STAR Cricket channels from February 19 to April 2. 

The Court directed the cable operators to file status report within a week and gave permission to ESIPL to take action against all other cable operators not party to the suit but unauthorisedly utilising the feed of ESPN, STAR Sports and STAR Cricket without licence. 

ESIPL, in its petition, urged the court to ban the 144 cable operators from accessing signals of the cricket matches without taking a licence from the company. 

The court restrained the 144 cable operators from transmitting and/or telecasting in any manner whatsoever without licence from ESS (ESPN STAR Sports) the telecast of ICC Cricket World Cup 2011. 

The court also restrained the other cable operators who have not been named in the petition and issued injunction against unnamed cable operators indulging in the illegal telecast and directed the police to render assistance to ESIPL to enforce the court order.

Royals Get Reprieve : To take Part in Auction

Source: Times of India

Bombay High court upholds the interim order of independent arbitrator Justice BN Srikrishna arbitrator's stay on IPL franchise Rajasthan Royals termination made by BCCI. 

Meanwhile, the court allowed Rajasthan Royals to take part in IPL 4 auction which will be held in January. 

However, the court has set financial conditions to Royals while upholding the stay and also directs Royals to file affidavit before it on January 3 specifying full details about mode of control. 

The BCCI had on October 10 decided to terminate the franchise agreement of Rajasthan Royals, along with that of Kings XI Punjab, for alleged breach of agreement by the two franchises. 

Royals had challenged the termination before the Bombay High Court.

Bombay HC stays Kings XI Termination from IPL

Source: NDTV

The Bombay High Court has granted Kings XI Punjab an interim stay on its expulsion from the IPL but said the franchise will have to satisfy certain conditions, including retaining its shareholding pattern, fulfilling pending player payments and paying the BCCI guarantee money in case the final judgement goes against them. The court also rejected Punjab's request to defer the date for submission of the list of players they would like to retain for the fourth edition of the league, the deadline for which expires today. Punjab have until midnight to finalise their list.

After listening to both parties over the last two days, Judge SJ Vajifdar said that "prima facie" Punjab had a strong case against the explusion and the "interim injunction" was only just. But his verdict carried many riders, the most important being that the franchise cannot change its shareholding pattern and the control should rest in the hands of the four main owners: Ness Wadia, Preity Zinta, Mohit Burman and Karan Paul. The court said that these four needed to hold not less than 51% of the shares in KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd - the rights-holding company of the franchise - until the final judgement. Punjab's owners refrained from commenting on the issue before they received the court order in hand tomorrow.

In the interim, Punjab will have to submit various guarantees to the court and the BCCI. The first is clearing the pending payments to its players over the last two years, an amount running upto Rs.35 crore ($7.77 million). And now, since the franchise is free to re-enter the IPL arena, the court has asked it to commit an amount of $18 million for the next two years (at the rate of $9 million per year) as guarantee money for player payments in case the franchise participates in the league.

The other important condition the court asked Punjab to fulfill was to pay the BCCI $3.5 million per year for a period of two years, as security towards any damage incurred by the board in case the final verdict went against Punjab later on.

Wednesday's news will be seen as another blow to the IPL, whose 2011 tournament has been put increasingly at risk by a succession of court cases. While the Rajasthan and Punjab franchises were embroiled in courtroom battles, a third (Kochi) barely made it over the line. As a result of the controversies, the player auction for the season has been delayed by several months.

In October the BCCI had terminated Punjab, holding the franchise guilty for violating the franchise agreement on three counts, the biggest offence being that the ownership had changed twice in the first three years of the league, something that went unreported to the Indian board.

The franchise moved court last month seeking redressal for the cancellation of its IPL contract. Its petition contended that the termination was a "deliberate and calculated" move to ensure a new and more lucrative re-bidding process. Both parties then decided to opt for the arbitration process, but that too got embroiled in controversy when the arbitrator, Justice BN Srikrishna, recused himself after admitting to the BCCI that he had been legal counsel for the Wadia Group, part owners of Punjab, for many years.

At that point the issue seemed to be snowballing into another protracted battle, just like the one Rajasthan Royals had got involved in with the BCCI. But Punjab rushed to the High Court for help and have now found new crutches to lean on before building their case in front of the arbitrator.

The confusion over the eventual number of teams that will be involved next season affects every component of the world's most lucrative domestic league: its teams/ franchises, its players and its very structure.

Fix Age Limit for Heads of Sports Bodies: Delhi High Court to Centre

Source : Outlook India.com

The Delhi High Court today directed the Centre to implement its National Sports Policy, which fixes 70 years as the upper age limit and 12 years as the maximum tenure for the chiefs of various sports federations.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan gave the direction while turning down a plea by Indian Olympic Association and five other federations to restrain the government from implementing the policy.

"At present, we are not inclined to direct the stay of the operation of the guidelines and also the steps taken in pursuance of the guidelines," the bench said.

The Centre had on May 1 come out with the guidelines, fixing 70 years as the upper age limit for the heads of the sporting bodies and stipulating that they would not continue in the post beyond 12 years, with or without a break.

The guidelines also provided that the secretaries and treasurers of national sports federations (NSF) and also the IOA should not have more than two successive tenures of four years each.

Giving a clear signal to the sports bodies to implement the guidelines, the bench said they cannot dilly-dally on the pretext that the matter is pending in the court.

"No excuse can be adopted by either of the parties that the restraint has to be applied because the matter is subjudice when this court has categorically stated that it is not inclined to grant stay in respect of the guidelines or action taken thereon," the bench said.

The sports bodies, which had gone to the court against implementation of the guideline including those for badminton, swimming, shooting, athletics, archery. They had approached the court after the Centre framed guidelines and issued notices to them, seeking adherence to the new rules.

Challenging the policy, the counsel, appearing for the sports bodies, contended the government guidelines were arbitrary and that the government had no power to frame them as only the legislative bodies were empowered to enact such laws.

Find the original article here.