The appellant also filed three other interim applications for reliefs pending the above numbered suits.
But in order to obviate the bar imposed by Clause 6.2.4 which came in the way of Respondent No.
However, subsequently it was registered in the year 1940, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The appellant filed OA No.
1 by appointing a Commissioner to make preliminary inquiry against the respondent No.
930 of 2008 with OA Nos.
1 to exercise his powers as per Clause 8 6 of the Regulations by suspending the respondent No.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed OA No.
228 of 2009 was filed against order in OA No.
1041 of 2008 in which it was prayed to issue temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.
229 of 2009 was filed against order in OA No.
The appellant has also sought permanent mandatory injunction directing BCCI to initiate inquiry under clause 32 ii of the Regulations, by appointing a Commissioner to make a preliminary inquiry against the respondent No.
The appellant has filed an application seeking permission of the Court to permit him to produce additional documents in the present appeals.
1 pending inquiry.
1, by appointing a Commissioner to make a preliminary inquiry against the respondent No.
1042 of 2008 was filed praying to issue a mandatory temporary injunction directing the respondent No.
2 participated in the Annual General Meeting, which was scheduled in Mumbai on September 27, 2008.
In each appeal, reply was filed by the respondents.
2, pending disposal of the suit.
226 of 2009 was filed against order in OA No.
The respondent No.
227 of 2009 was filed against order in OA No.
2 was also the Honorary Treasurer of BCCI and the President of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association.
2 to participate in the General Body Meeting scheduled at Mumbai on September 27, 2008 or any other subsequent date for companysideration of election of the new office bearers of the respondent No.
930 of 2008 which was instituted by the appellant in the Madras High Court and recommended three amendments, two of which were with reference to Twenty20 cricket and the third amendment related to Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations.
The two men companymittee met on September 12, 2008, i.e., well before the first suit, i.e. Civil Suit No.
2 from functioning as Secretary of BCCI and 4 to grant mandatory temporary injunction directing BCCI number to permit the respondent No.
Pursuant to the suggestion made by the Working Committee, the President of BCCI formed a two man companymittee to recommend suitable changes.
But even on appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals against which these appeals by special leave have been filed and were heard at length.
2 from companytesting the election for the post of Secretary pending disposal of the suit.
1300 of 2008 was also filed in the said suit claiming temporary injunction to restrain the respondent No.
2 to participate in the General Body Meeting scheduled in Mumbai on September 27, 2008 or on any other subsequent date, which would be companyvened in relation to election of new office bearers.
2 as Treasurer of the respondent No.
Another relief claimed by the appellant in the said suit is for mandatory injunction directing the respondent No.
226 to 229 of 2009, particulars of which are as under OSA No.
According to him, he is an administrator as defined in Clause 1 n of the Regulations framed by BCCI.
1, the appellant has filed another suit in the High Court, i.e., Civil Suit No.
2 was liable to be penalized since he is the Managing Director of India Cements Limited, which was one of the franchisee of IPL and IPL being an event of BCCI, the respondent No.
As the Court did number grant ex parte temporary injunctions as prayed for by the appellant, the respondent No.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On the same day an amendment in Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations for players, team officials, managers, etc.,
The appellant wrote another letter on September 19, 2008 to the President of BCCI reiterating his grievance against the respondent No.
2, who was then holding the post of Honorary Treasurer of BCCI and was also the Managing Director India Cement Limited, should number have been awarded franchised IPL rights for ownership of Chennai Super Kings Team by BCCI and award of such rights amounted to an act of indiscipline or misconduct within the scope of Clause 32 ii of the Regulations.
930 of 2008 as well as OA No.
2 and urged the then President of BCCI to take action against the respondent No.
Wherein the respondent No.2 was elected as Secretary of the respondent No.
This companyld be done if there was a widest possible participation both by franchisees and stakeholders including the spectators.
But the learned single Judge before whom the applications for injunction were filed in the suit was pleased to dismiss the interim applications for injunction as the single Judge companypared the BCCI to private clubs and held that numberoutsider can question the regulations of the society and the companyrts also cannot interfere in the internal management of the society.
Further OA No.
1 herein to act under Clause 32 ii of Memorandum and Rules and Regulations Regulations for short of the respondent No.
Feeling aggrieved by order dated July 13, 2009 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the appellant filed OSA Nos.
The record unerringly shows that the said OA was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated September 26, 2008.
The members of the respondent No.
1042 of 2008, filed in Civil Suit No.
1 companytended that the suits were instituted by the appellant in his individual capacity and, therefore, the decision would be binding only on him but the nature of the reliefs claimed indicated that the suits were filed in public interest and, therefore, the suits in individual capacity were number maintainable.
The respondent No.
Aggrieved by the amendment carried out in the Regulations of the respondent No.
OA No.
Ultimately, by the impugned judgment dated March 24, 2010, the High Court has dismissed the appeals which has given rise to the instant appeals.
When the world at large is endeavouring to eradicate companyflict of interest in public life as also in private venture and the respondent Board of Control for Cricket in India shortly referred to as the BCCI , which enjoys monopoly status as regards regulation of the sport of Cricket in India, and is perceived to follow the doctrine of fairness and good faith in all its activities, has itself recognized its value and importance by incorporating in its Regulation that No administrator shall have directly or indirectly any companymercial interest in any events of the BCCI, then whether any exception diluting its effect companyld be carved out of that without any just cause by introducing an amendment into the same, is the question which essentially falls for companysideration in these appeals.
5740 of 2008 was filed in the later suit seeking mandatory temporary injunction directing the BCCI number to permit the respondent No.
1299, 1300 and 5740 of 2008, filed in Civil Suit No.
3753 OF 2011 Arising out of SLP C 12181 of 2010 C. Muthiah Appellant Versus Board of Control for Cricket in India Anr.
In the said letter it was claimed by the appellant that the respondent No.
2 from functioning as Secretary of BCCI and 3 For mandatory injunction directing BCCI number to permit the respondent No.
2 herein, on December 29, 2007, to participate in the auction companyducted by IPL.
1299 of 2008, 1300 of 2008 and 5740 of 2008 filed in Civil Suit No.
Initially it was functioning as an unregistered association of persons.
It would be relevant to numberice the findings of the High Court, in short, which are as under Before the High Court the companytention of the appellant was that the suits were filed by him in the capacity of past President of BCCI as he was an administrator within the meaning of the said phrase, as defined in Clause 1 n of the Regulations.
Thus, by one stroke of an amendment, which was introduced with racing speed, without any deliberation by the BCCI, and without numberice of 21 days to the members on this agenda which was required under the Regulation, the most companymercial event of BCCI namely IPL, Champions League and Twenty 20 matches were excluded from Clause 6.2.4 diluting the entire effect of Clause 6.2.4, reducing this salutary clause into a dead letter.
J. M. Panchal New Delhi April 28, 2011.
The main prayer made in the said suit is to 1 declare that Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations insofar as it excludes the IPL and Champions League Twenty 20 is illegal and opposed to public policy For permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.
1167 of 2008, refusing to grant four reliefs sought, namely, 1 to grant mandatory temporary injunction directing the respondent No.
2, on behalf of India Cements Limited, participated in the auction and was awarded the franchised IPL rights for ownership of Chennai Super Kings team by the BCCI.
1 to exercise his powers under Clause 8 6 of the Regulations.
1042 of 2008, which was filed in Civil Suit No.
Therefore, the appellant is number entitled to the injunctions claimed by him in different interlocutory applications which were filed before the High Court.
For the purpose of election of the President, the BCCI is divided into five zones, i.e., South, Central, North, West and East and, therefore, the turn of the President from South zone would companye once in 12 years only.
1167 of 2008 vide order dated July 13, 2009.
Hence, the Plaintiff Appellant herein raised an issue in the suit that the respondent No.2 Sri.
5740 of 2008.
Just after a few days of filing of the suit by the Plaintiff Appellant herein Sri Muthiah, wherein he sought to enforce the policy in Clause 6.2.4 against the second respondent Sri N. Srinivasan, the BCCI met on 27.9.2008 and introduced an amendment to Clause 6.2.4 carving out an exception therein which reads as follows No Administrator shall have directly or indirectly any companymercial interest in any of the events of the BCCI excluding IPL, Champions League and Twenty 20.
was made with effect from September 27, 2008 and the amended Clause 6.2.4 provided as under No administrator shall have directly or indirectly any companymercial interest in the matches or events companyducted by BCCI excluding events like IPL or Champions League Twenty 20.
OA No.
1042 of 2008, OSA No.
The amendment introduced by the BCCI to Clause 6.2.4 was, therefore, challenged by the appellant by filing a second suit bearing S.No.
1299 of 2008 in Civil Suit No.
1 and for restraining the respondent No.
This position is number disputed by the appellant.
1043 of 2008 was filed by the appellant seeking temporary injunction directing the respondent No.
2 to companytest any of the posts of the office bearers in future for a reasonable number of years as the Court thought fit.
Since numberaction was taken by the President of the BCCI on the companyplaints submitted by the appellant, the appellant has filed Civil Suit No.
1167 of 2008 with a prayer to suspend operation of the amendment made in Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations.
The third application, i.e., OA No.
Along with the plaint of the suit, the appellant also filed three applications, particulars of which are as under OA No.
2 from participating in the auction for IPL, an amendment was hurriedly and most expeditiously introduced in Clause 6.2.4 in order to permit second respondent Sri N. Srinivasan to participate in the bid in which he was a successful bidder and companysequently owned Chennai Super King in spite of the bar of clause 6.2.4 which was operating against him prior to its amendment and was introduced subsequent to the auction which was held for owning Chennai Super King, in absence of which he would have been ineligible to participate in the bid and hence disqualified.
1299 of 2008, OSA No.
1300 of 2008 whereas OSA No.
N. Srinivasan being the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of India Cements Ltd. and also being Office Bearer in BCCI, violated the Regulation 6.2.4 which specifically lays down that numberAdministrator shall have direct or indirect companymercial interest in any of the events of the BCCI.
1 to act under Clause 32 ii of the Regulations framed by the respondent No.
2 from functioning as Secretary of BCCI.
930 of 2008 in the High Court of Madras at Chennai seeking a permanent injunction to restrain BCCI from permitting the respondent No.
2 had thereby acquired companymercial interest and violated the terms of Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations.
226 to 229 of 2009 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by which, the order dated July 13, 2009 in OA No.
After companysidering the rival claims of the parties, necessary issues for determination were framed.
The said suit is filed on the ground that the respondent No.
It may be mentioned that at that time the respondent No.
The appellant is the Ex President of BCCI.
The High Court was also of the view that on mere allegations, an injunction companyld number be ordered against the respondent No.2 from participating in the General Body Meeting companyvened, to elect the office bearers, as those allegations were yet to be substantiated at the time of the trial.
It is an admitted position that the additional documents sought to be produced before this Court were number part of the records before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court.
1167 of 2008 alleging that the amendment in Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations was made to protect the interest of the respondent No.
The process of bidding by the franchisees for the various participating teams establishes the companymercial nature of IPL and Champions League T20 cricket.
However, the main thrust of the argument of learned companynsel for the plaintiff appellant all through in the suit and in the appeal before the High Court as also in the injunction application was to the effect that the amendment introduced by the BCCI in Clause 6.2.4 was an abuse of the amending power exercised by the BCCI, in so far as the power of amendment had been used number to promote Cricket, but to promote the interest of the second respondent.
The appellant addressed a letter dated September 5, 2008 to the President of BCCI and made companyplaint about the violation of Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations by the respondent No.
The respondent No.
1167/2008 wherein the appellant also filed an interim application seeking an order of injunction in both the suits for restraining the BCCI from giving effect to the new amendment by keeping the same under suspension which according to the appellant, had been introduced surreptitiously merely to benefit respondent No.2 Sri N. Srinivasan who had participated in the auction in pursuance to the tender issued by the BCCI for persons and companyporates to own and operate a team for IPL matches wherein respondent No.2 Sri N. Srinivasan who is the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of a companypany known as India Cements Ltd., became the successful bidder for the Chennai Super King in the IPL auction which according to the case of appellant, companyld number have been permitted in view of Clause 6.2.4 as it stood prior to the amendment.
1, i.e., BCCI, from permitting the respondent No.
12232 12234/2010 J U D G M E N T GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. Leave granted.
The attempt was to maximize interest and participation in T20 by way of acquisition and funding of teams.
Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.
3754 3756 OF 2011 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
1041/2008 he had sought a temporary injunction restraining the BCCI from permitting Respondent No.2 Sri N. Srinivasan to participate in the General Body Meeting but in the second application he sought injunction against the amendment introduced by pleading to put it under suspension.
These appeals are directed against companymon judgment dated March 24, 2010, rendered in OSA Nos.
M. Panchal, J. Leave is granted in each petition.
The appellant, therefore, filed two applications for injunction and in the first application bearing No.
