A.C. Muthiah vs Bd. Of Control For Cricket In India& Anr

for short) or Champions League Twenty 20, (3) to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 from functioning as Secretary of BCCI and (4) to grant mandatory temporary injunction directing BCCI not to permit the respondent No. 2 to contest any of the posts of office bearers in future for a reasonable number of years as the Court thinks fit, is upheld.

3. In order to understand the controversy raised in the instant cases it will be relevant to notice the essential facts emerging from record of the case.

The BCCI was formed in the year 1928. Initially it was functioning as an unregistered association of persons. However, subsequently it was registered in the year 1940, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

The respondent No. 1, i.e., the BCCI sent an invitation to India Cements Limited based at Chennai and represented by its Managing Director Mr. N. Srinivasan, who is respondent No. 2 herein, on December 5 29, 2007, to participate in the auction conducted by IPL.

It may be mentioned that at that time the respondent No. 2 was also the Honorary Treasurer of BCCI and the President of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association. 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.

The appellant addressed a letter dated September 5, 2008 to the President of BCCI and made complaint about the violation of Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations by the respondent No. 2. In the said letter it was claimed by the appellant that the respondent 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 6 being an event of BCCI, the respondent No. 2 had thereby acquired commercial interest and violated the terms of Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations. The appellant wrote another letter on September 19, 2008 to the President of BCCI reiterating his grievance against the respondent No. 2 and urged the then President of BCCI to take action against the respondent No. 2. Since no action was taken by the President of the BCCI on the complaints submitted by the appellant, the appellant has filed Civil Suit No. 930 of 2008 in the High Court of Madras at Chennai seeking a permanent injunction to restrain BCCI from permitting 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 convened in relation to election of new office bearers. The appellant has also sought permanent mandatory injunction directing BCCI to initiate inquiry under clause 32(ii) of the Regulations, by 7 appointing a Commissioner to make a preliminary inquiry against the respondent No. 2. Another relief claimed by the appellant in the said suit is for mandatory injunction directing the respondent No. 1 to exercise his powers as per Clause 8(6) of the Regulations by suspending the respondent No. 2 as Treasurer of the respondent No. 1 pending inquiry.

The said suit is filed on the ground that 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 not 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.

6. As the Court did not grant ex-parte temporary injunctions as prayed for by the appellant, the respondent No. 2 participated in the Annual General Meeting, which was scheduled in Mumbai on September 27, 2008. Wherein the respondent No.2 was elected as Secretary of the respondent No. 1. On the same day an amendment in Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations for players, team officials, managers, etc., was made with effect from September 27, 2008 and the amended Clause 6.2.4 provided as under: -

Aggrieved by the amendment carried out in the Regulations of the respondent No. 1, the appellant has filed another suit in the High Court, i.e., Civil Suit No. 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. 2. The main prayer made in the 10 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 (2) For permanent injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 from functioning as Secretary of BCCI and (3) For mandatory injunction directing BCCI not to permit the respondent No. 2 from contesting any of the posts of the office bearers.

7. The appellant also filed three other interim applications for reliefs pending the above numbered suits. The appellant filed OA No. 1299 of 2008 in Civil Suit No. 1167 of 2008 with a prayer to suspend operation of the amendment made in Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations. OA No. 1300 of 2008 was also filed in the said suit claiming temporary injunction to restrain the respondent No. 2 from functioning as Secretary of BCCI. Further OA No. 5740 of 2008 was filed in the later suit seeking mandatory temporary injunction directing the BCCI not to permit the respondent No. 2 11 to contest any of the posts of the office bearers in future for a reasonable number of years as the Court thought fit.

10.It would be relevant to notice the findings of the High Court, in short, which are as under:

22.The result of above discussion may be summarized as follows:

laws to govern the activities of its members. The memorandum, rules and bye-laws framed by the BCCI 38 were found to be in conformity with the object of the Act and, therefore, it was registered as a Society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It is an admitted case between the parties that no amendment has been made to the registered memorandum, rules and regulations or bye-laws. Regulation 6.2.4 is only a subsidiary regulation introduced by the working committee of the BCCI. The amendments that are challenged by the appellant in his second suit are those made to the subsidiary regulation. The validity of said amendment will have to be tested only in the light of the interest of the society and its members and not vis-`-vis the interest of non members/strangers. The rule that the public policy of a society must be in consonance with the statute under which it is registered or is being governed and not public policy as indicated in the constitution has been laid down by this Court in the Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Urban) (2005) 5 SCC

48. As noticed earlier the learned Single Judge of the High Court before whom the suits were instituted as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have refused to grant equitable relief of injunction claimed by the appellant. This Court is of the opinion that grant of interim relief as prayed for can amount to decreeing the suit without adjudicating the claims raised in the pleadings of the parties. Such a course is not permissible at all. This Court has deprecated the practice of grant of interim relief, which amounts to decreeing the suit in several reported decisions. The averments made in the plaints would show that the final 79 reliefs claimed are almost the same as claimed by way of interim reliefs. Whether the appellant is entitled to equitable relief of injunction or not, will have to be decided after several questions raised in the plaints are decided on the basis of evidence, which may be adduced by the parties. The questions of law sought to be raised by the appellant are at the best mixed questions of law and facts. As observed earlier the appellant has failed to disclose certain material facts nor the appellant has been able to prima facie establish that his legal rights have been violated as required under Sections 34 and 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The appellant is not justified in seeking a permanent injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from permitting the respondent No. 2 to contest election for an Office Bearer's post. I.A. No. 1041 of 2008 in CS No. 930 of 2008 was dismissed by the High Court. The said order was never challenged before higher forum by the appellant and has thus attained finality. No material is placed by the appellant on the record of the case on the basis of which a 80 reasonable finding can be recorded that if interim relief as sought for by the appellant is not granted, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss or that great prejudice would be caused to his case as pleaded in the plaints of the suits. Though this Court has prima facie come to the conclusion that the suits are not maintainable on the basis of the plaint allegations themselves, several allegations made would require evidence to be let in by the appellant so as to entitle him to any interim relief. On this ground also the interim reliefs claimed cannot be granted.

8. The amendment introduced by the BCCI to Clause 6.2.4 was, therefore, challenged by the appellant by filing a second suit bearing C.S.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 91 in the auction in pursuance to the tender issued by the BCCI for persons and corporates 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 company 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, could not have been permitted in view of Clause 6.2.4 as it stood prior to the amendment. But in order to obviate the bar imposed by Clause 6.2.4 which came in the way of Respondent 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 consequently 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. The appellant, therefore, filed two applications for injunction and in the first application bearing No. 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 92 injunction against the amendment introduced by pleading to put it under suspension.

28. In view of the above mentioned principles emerging from the judgment of this Court in Zee Telefilms case, the BCCI cannot be regarded as an instrumentality of 55 State and it will have to be held that the two suits filed by the appellant are not maintainable.

To argue that purposive interpretation of unamended Players Regulations would include events like ODI Match, Twenty20, etc. is to ignore the hard ground realities and completely brush aside the definitions of those terms mentioned earlier.

For the foregoing reasons the appeals fail and are dismissed. In the peculiar facts of the case it is directed that there shall be no order as to costs.

18. We have also to bear in mind at this stage that the instant matter is not even remotely connected with any disciplinary action to be taken against any member, as the specific issue in the suit is whether the amendment could have been introduced by the BCCI in Clause 6.2.4 ignoring and overlooking the fact that the existing office bearer of the BCCI cannot be allowed to participate in the auction for owning IPL or Twenty 20 matches as it would clash and conflict with the interest of the BCCI.

22. Taking into consideration the aforesaid salutary principles of interpretation, I am clearly of the view that the definition of the term `Administrator' does not exclude the past president from the meaning of Administrator so as to hold that the action taken by the Administrator by filing a civil suit and questioning the amendment introduced by the BCCI in Clause 6.2.4 was not fit to be entertained on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the amendment on the ground of his competence or locus standi. I, therefore, find it hard to subscribe and agree with the view that only if a past President is nominated on any of the sub-committees of disciplinary committee of the BCCI, he would be deemed to be an Administrator and not otherwise, is a difficult proposition to accept.

bearer/Administrator who is a past President in view of the definition of Administrator incorporated in the BCCI Regulation.

27. Thus once, it is held that the Plaintiff/Appellant is also an Administrator of the BCCI in view of the definition of Administrator, his competence to challenge the amendment introduced in the regulation of BCCI cannot be held as not maintainable on the ground that BCCI is not a `State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as civil suits can surely be filed and can be held maintainable if the plaintiff is able to make out a case that cause of action has arisen for filing a suit and if he is able to sustain the cause of action and he also is able to establish that he is the proper party to the suit, the same will have to be tried by the Court and cannot be dismissed on the ground of its maintainability. In fact, when a civil suit is filed for seeking civil remedy, the question whether the 11 contesting party satisfies the condition that it is an instrumentality of the State is of no relevance as the civil courts do not have to discharge constitutional function so as to enter into this question. If it does, it would be traversing beyond the boundaries of its jurisdiction. Hence, in my opinion, this question is clearly irrelevant for the purpose of the controversy raised in this petition.

Additionally, with effect from September 2008, respondent No.2 became the Secretary of BCCI and, therefore, the Ex-officio Chief Executive of BCCI and also Convener of the Meetings of the Committees of BCCI including IPL and Champions League.

32. Hence, I deem it appropriate to allow these appeals and grant injunction by directing suspension of operation of the impugned amendment dated 27.9.2008 introduced in Regulation 6.2.4 of the BCCI. In case, the Respondent No. 2 - Sri. N. Srinivasan opts to continue owning and operating IPL Chennai Super King, he shall be at liberty to do so but in that event he shall be restrained from holding any office in the BCCI in any capacity whatsoever in view of the reasons assigned hereinabove.

April 28, 2011