BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET, INDIA AND ANR. versus NETAJI CRICKET CLUB AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 173 · Decided: 10-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET, INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
NETAJI CRICKET CLUB AND ORS. 
JANUARY IO, 2005 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Societies-Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975-Appel!ant-
Board, a society registered under the Act controlling the sport of cricket in 
India-Enjoying monopoly status as regard regulation of cricket in terms of C 
its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association-"Fairness" and 
"good faith" in its action-Requirement of-Held: Having regard to the 
enormity of power exercised by it, the Board is bound to follow the doctrine 
of 'fairness' and 'good faith' in all its activities-It has a duty to act reasonably 
and cannot act arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously-Both J.-Ub/ic good 
and welfare of cricket must be kept in view-It is wholly undesirable that a D 
body incharge of controlling the sport of cricket should involve in litigations 
completely losing sight of the objectives of the society . . 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 114 and Order XLV/f, Rule I- · 
Undertaking given by counsel on behalf of party-Conditional order passed 
by High Court on that basis-Review application filed alleging breach of the E 
undertaking-Maintainability of-Held: Application for review would be 
maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence 
or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if 
the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient 
reason-A mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in p 
nature of an undertaking may also call for review--/! is also not correct to 
contend that the Court while exercising its review jurisdiction in any situation 
whatsoever cannot take into consideration a subsequent event-On/acts, where 
the High Court accepted its own mistake in understanding the nature and 
purport of the undertaking given by the counsel appearing on behalf of the 
Appellant-Board and its correlation with as to what transpired in the AGM of G 
the Board, the subsequent event may be taken into consideration by the Court 
for purpose of rectifYing its own mistake-Furthermore, the impugned order 
passed in review is only interlocutory in nature and not wholly without 
jurisdiction so as to warrant inte1ference-Discretionary jurisdiction under 
173 
H 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A Article 136 of the Constitution not required to be exercised-However directions 
given in terms of Art.142 of the Constitution-Constitution of India. 1950-
Articles 136 and 142. 
Doctrines-Doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit "-Applicability 
of 
B 
Words and Phrases-Words 'sufficient reason' in Order 47, Rule /-
Meaning of. 
Respondent No.1 filed suit for declaration and injunction in the High 
Court, expressing apprehension that Appellant-Board in its ensuing 
C election of office bearers would not permit some candidates to contest on 
ground of residence. Single Judge of the High Court appointed Mr. S. 
Mohan, a former Supreme Court Judge as a Commissioner to conduct 
the elections. In Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench, an 
undertaking was given by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Board 
D that the Board would not disqualify any candidate for the post of President 
on the ground of residence, whereafter with consent of the parties, the suit 
itself was withdrawn and the appeal disposed of with conditional directions 
in accordance with which the Annual General meeting (election meeting) 
~ 
was directed to be convened. After the meeting was held, Respondent No.1 
filed review petition inter alia contending that the purported undertaking 
E given by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Board was not adhered 
to and furthermore no appeal had been filed by the Appellants against 
the order of injunction passed by the Single Judge. 
F 
The review petition was admitted by the Division Bench which 
observing that the undertaking given by the counsel of Appellant-Board 
across the Bar being not been given effect to in its letter and spirit, 
accordingly passed an interim order of injunction. Hence the present 
appeals, in which issues regarding validity of the election meeting (AGM) 
on ground of use of casting vote by the Chairman, Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya 
and regarding exclusion of a member, i.e. the Maharashthra Cricket 
G Association from voting through Mr. Agashe or any other person arose 
for consideration. 
Disposing of the appeals

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.