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.

R.Regupathy's Letter to Madras Chief Justice

Source : Lawyerclubindia

The following is the letter dated July 2, 2009 written by R.Regupathi, then Judge of the Madras High Court, to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court containing the relevant part where there is a specific reference to R.K.Chandramohan.

“On 12.06.2009, at about 2 p.m. during Lunch Recess, while I was in the Chamber, High Court, Madras, my Office Assistant, Mr. Mujibur Ali, informed me that Mr. Chandramohan, Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, is waiting and seeking for an appointment to meet me and, immediately, I allowed him to come in. To start with, he discussed about the general subject on Advocates and so proceeding, he said that two persons, who are father and son/accused in a criminal case, are family friends of a Union Minister by name Raja, and that the petition filed by them for anticipatory bail must be considered favourably. Simultaneously, he handed over his mobile phone by saying that the Union Minister is on the line to have a talk with me. Right away, I discouraged such conduct of Mr. Chandramohan and told him that the case would be disposed of in accordance with law, if listed before me.

“Subsequently, on 29.06.2009, second anticipatory bail petition came to be filed for the same accused and on behalf of Mr. Chandramohan (counsel on record for the petitioners/accused), who was present in the court, Mr. Masood, Advocate, argued by stating that some new points need to be submitted and, for such purpose, the Case Diary must be summoned. Adverting to the counter filed by the prosecution and referring to the view I had already taken during the previous occasion and pointing out that there was no change of circumstance to positively consider the case of the petitioners, it was conveyed that there was no valid reason or ground to grant the prayer in the 2nd petition. It was also observed that the counsel may argue the case in detail, however, this time orders would be passed on merits and they would not be allowed to withdraw the petition. Again, the counsel insisted that the case diary must be called for and the case be heard in detail with reference to the materials collected during the course of investigation. I have impressed upon the representing counsel by explicating that a like direction could be given to the prosecution only in the event of the Judge satisfying that such course is inevitable and absolutely necessary in a given situation and that, on mere demands and as a matter of routine, such exercise cannot be undertaken.

At that time, Mr. Chandramohan stood up and made a similar demand and when I emphatically declined to accede to his adamant demand, he vociferously remarked that the court is always taking sides with the prosecution and not accepting the submissions made by the counsel for the accused while giving importance to the Prosecutor. On such pointless remark, I said that the counsel engaged to argue on his behalf has made his submission and he is not supposed to pass such slanderous and derogatory remarks; for, all these days, the court has been passing orders after hearing the parties and assessing the cases on their own merits and in accordance with law. In spite of that, Mr. Chandramohan, insisted that the Case Diary must be summoned and the matter be adjourned to some other day. Since Mr. Chandramohan highly raised his voice and his approach towards the court was quarrelsome, I told him that a person like him, an advocate holding position as Chairman of a State Bar Council, should not behave in such a fashion. Still the learned Advocate was outburst and uncontrollable, and I observed that a counsel, who made an attempt to exert influence on the court by using the name of a Cabinet Minister, cannot be allowed to succeed in snatching an order in his favour by advancing threat. Due to such odd experience, I had to direct the Registry to place the papers before Your Lordship for obtaining orders to post the case before some other learned Judge.

“The case concerned was taken up at the end in the afternoon and inside the court hall, there were about 4 to 5 Advocates present and no one from the Press was there. That being so, the oral observations actually made came to be translated by the Print and Electronic Media with their own interpretations and ideas …….

“I have written this letter/report to apprise Your Lordship the actual state of affairs Involved.”

Put all FIRs Online : Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has directed city Police Commissioner B K Gupta to ensure that all the First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged by the police are put on its website within 24 hours of the complaint being filed. 

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan said yesterday that receiving a copy of the FIR is a right of the accused and it comes under the right to information and right to life. 

The copy must be handed over to the accused first. 

The High Court directed that the order should be implemented soon and should come into force from February 1, 2011. 

The High Court's directions came on a letter written by an individual drawing its attention to the accused's right to get a copy of the FIR. Since, at present there is no rule that an accused has a right to immediately get the copy of FIR after it is filed. 

The court converted the letter into a petition. 

Under section 207 of the CrPC, the copy of FIR and other documents are provided to the accused only when the charge sheet is filed in court. Section 154 of CrPC provides only the complainant has the right to receive the copy of FIR. 

Amicus curie Arvind Nigam, appointed by the court earlier, submitted that recording of FIR is an official act of a public official in discharge of his official duties and, therefore, it becomes a public document. 

The court ruled that fair and impartial investigation is a facet of article 21 of the Constitution (Right to life and liberty), and is the statutory duty of a police officer to provide an accused free copies of police report, first information report and all other documents and relevant extracts. 

Additional Solicitor General A S Chandhiok, appearing on behalf of Delhi, submitted that an accused is not entitled to receive an FIR in certain cases like kidnapping for ransom, cases involving trauma like murder and rape, cases dealing with gangsters where life of witnesses is threatened, cases related to terrorists and national security and those registered under the Official Secrets Act. 

The High Court directed the police to constitute a three-member committee of higher officers within eight weeks to deal with his or her grievances in case of denial of copy of FIR on the ground of cases being sensitive in nature which will dispose of the representation of the accused within three days from the date of receiving them.

No Move to Regulate Lawyers' Fees: Moily

Source : Indlaw

The government has no proposal under consideration to regulate the fees charged by lawyers, Rajya Sabha was told through a written reply on Monday available today. 

'No such proposal is under consideration of the government,' Law and Justice Minister M Veerappa Moily said, answering Congress member from Andhra Pradesh Raashid Alvi. 

The member had asked whether the 'government is considering to regulate the fees charged by the lawyers' and whether India's judicial system needed reform to provide justice to everyone. 

Dr Moily cited such steps as limiting adjournments to three or increasing judges' strength in High Courts and Supreme Courts. 

He said the government has decided 'in principle' to set up a National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms to reduce the period of pendency in courts from an average of 15 years to three years by 2012.