LexA.C. MUTHIAH versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011] 8 S.C.R. 445 A.C. MUTHIAH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3753 of 2011) APRIL 28, 20·11 [J.M. PANCHAL AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]* A B Memorandum and Rules and Regulations of BCCI, 2008: Clauses 1(n), 6.2.4- Complaints filed by appellant-past C president of BCCI before the BCCI President alleging that second respondent being the office bearer·of BCCI and also the Chairman and M.D. of India Cements Limited was disqualified to participate in the auction held for owning Indian · Premier League (IPL) in which he was declared sucdessful D bidder and thus came to own Chennai Super King ..;.. No response to the complaint - Suit filed by appellant - Just a few days after filing of the said suit, the BCCI on 27.9.2008 introduced an amendment to Clause 6.2.4 carving out an Exception - After the amendment, the said clause read "No E Administrator shall have directly or indirectly any commercial interest in any of the events of the BCCI excluding IPL, Champions League and Twenty 20." - The amendment to Clause 6.2.4 was challenged by the appellant by filing a second suit wherein the appellant also filed two applications F seeking temporary injunction restraining the BCCI from permitting the second respondent to participate in the General . Body Meeting and injunction against the amendment introduced by pleading to put it under suspension - High Court dismissed the applications on the ground that appellant G had no locus standi to question the Regulations and the court • There being difference of opinion, the matter has been referred to larger bench and the dissenting opinion of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra is reported herein. 445 H 446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. A also cannot interfere with the internal management of the society - On appeal, Held: Per Gyan Sudha Misra, J. - Past President of BCCI is also an Administrator and has locus standi to file suit challenging amendment to the Memorandum - Plea that the past President has to be nominated on any of B the sub-committees of BCCI to be treated as an Administrator is not tenable - In order to decide whether the plaintiff has a right to file a civil suit or not, locus standi or competence of the plaintiff alone is to be established and not the question whether the BCCI is a State within the meaning of Article 12 c of the Constitution which is a condition to be fulfilled for invoking the jurisdiction u/Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution as also Article 32 of the Constitution but surely not for filing a civil suit or injunction application - Once, it is held that the plaintiff/appellant was also an Administrator of 0 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 - Conflict of interest does not require actual proof of any actual pecuniary gain or pecuniary loss - E Second respondent necessarily was privy to highly sensitive information about the bidding process, the design of the tender, the rules of the game, the future plans of BCCI in respect of IPL and, therefore, it was inconceivable that such insider information to which any major office bearer of BCCI F would necessarily be privy, would not have used and misused both potential and actual materials in the capacity of a bidder - Appellant fully succeeded in making out a prima facie case that this amendment smacked of arbitrariness and bias in favour of the second respondent and hence it was a fit case G for grant of injunction keeping the impugned amendment under suspension or abeyance - However, since second respondent has already participated and succeeded in the bid, and is also owning Chennai Super King, it is left open to him to exercise his option whether he wishes to continue as an H office bearer of the BCCI or own IPL Chennai Super King - A.C. MUTHIAH v. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR 447 CRICKET IN INDIA High Court was not justified in not granting the temporary A injunction claimed by appellant - Per Panchal, J: High Court was justified in not granting the temporary injunction claimed by appellant ..:. In view of difference of opinion, matter referred to larger bench - Reference to larger bench - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 12, 32, 226, 227. B The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.