Lalit Kumar Modi v. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Others

Judgment

1. In the above suit the Plaintiff is the Administrator of the Defendant no.1 i.e. the Board of Control for Cricket in India (`BCCI'). The BCCI is the national governing body for cricket in India registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The Plaintiff was the Vice President of BCCI and was also the Chairman and the Commissioner of the Indian Premier League (`IPL') which is a sub-committee of BCCI. 2 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc

2. By the present suit, the Plaintiff, inter alia, has sought a declaration to the effect that the agenda notice dated 27th November 2009 issued by the Defendant no.1 calling for a Special General Meeting (`SGM') is illegal, null and void and the SGM dated 11th December 2010 held in pursuance of such notice is illegal, null and void and any decision taken in the said SGM dated 11th December 2010 is illegal, null and void. In the present suit the Plaintiff has taken out the above Notice of Motion wherein he has prayed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants be restrained by an order of temporary injunction of this Court from conducting any enquiry through the Disciplinary Committee constituted by the Defendants on 11th December 2010 and from proceeding any further with the disciplinary proceedings against the Plaintiff.

3. For the purposes of deciding the present Notice of Motion, Rules 1(q), 17(iii), 32(ii), 32(iv) and 32(vii) of the Rules and Regulations of the BCCI are relevant and therefore reproduced hereunder :- "1(q) Disciplinary Committee : The Board shall at every Annual General Meeting appoint a Committee consisting of three persons of whom the President shall be one of them to inquire into and deal with the matter relating to any act of indiscipline or misconduct or violation of any of the Rules and Regulations by any player, Umpire, Team Officer, Administrator, Selector or any person appointed or employed by BCCI. The Committee shall have full power and authority to 3 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc summon any person(s) and call for any evidence it may deem fit and necessary and make and publish its decision including imposing penalties if so required, as provided in the Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. 17 (iii) The President may at his discretion direct the Secretary to convene a Special General Meeting at shorter notice in which case a notice of at least 10 days shall be given.

32. Misconduct and Procedure to deal with :- (i) ... ... ... (ii) In the event of any complaint being received from any quarter or based on any report published or circulated or on its own motion, in the subject matter of any act of indiscipline or misconduct or violation of any of Rules and Regulations by any Player, Umpire, Team Official, Selector or any person appointed or employed by BCCI, the President shall refer the same within 48 hours to a Commissioner appointed by the Board to make a preliminary enquiry. The Commissioner shall forthwith make preliminary inquiry and call for explanations from the concerned person(s) and submit his report to the President not later than 15 days from the date of reference being made by the President. On receipt of the report, the President shall forthwith forward the same to the Disciplinary Committee. (iii) ... ... ... (iv) If any Member or Associate Member or any Administrator of the Board commits any act of indiscipline or misconduct or acts in any manner which may or likely to be detrimental to the interest of the Board or the game of cricket or endanger the harmony or affect the reputation or interest of the Board or refuses or neglects to comply with any of the provisions 4 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc of the Memorandum and/or the Rules and Regulations of the Board and/or the Rules of conduct framed by the Board, the Hony. Secretary of the Board, on receipt of any complaint shall, in consultation with the President, forthwith issue Show Cause Notice calling for explanation and on receipt of the same and/or in case of no cause or insufficient cause being shown, shall refer the same to the Committee. The Committee shall after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned shall submit its findings to the Board. The Board shall at the Special General Meeting specially convened take appropriate decision by majority of 3/4th members present and voting at the said meeting. (v) (vi) ... ... ... ... ... ... (vii) Pending inquiry and proceeding into complaints or charges or misconduct or any act of indiscipline or violation of any Rules and Regulations, the concerned Member, Associate Member, Administrator, Player, Umpire, Team Official, Referee or the selector (including the privilege and benefits such as subsidies to the Member or Associate Member) may be suspended by the President from participating in any of the affairs of the Board until final adjudication. However, the adjudication should be completed with six months."

4. At the Annual General Meeting (`AGM') of BCCI held on 25th

September 2009, three members i.e. the President, Mr.Arun Jaitley and Mr.Chirayu Amin were appointed as members of the Disciplinary Committee.

5. On 25th April 2010 the President of BCCI issued a notice to the Plaintiff, wherein after recording that the show cause notice had been issued by the Hon.Secretary, BCCI in consultation with the President, 5 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc the Plaintiff was asked to explain within a period of fifteen days why action should not be taken against him. It was further recorded that the allegations contained in the show cause notice were extremely grave and serious. As an Administrator of the Board the Plaintiff had prima facie committed acts of indiscipline and misconduct which were detrimental to the game and Board. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, pending the reply of the Plaintiff to the show cause notice and an inquiry with regard to other allegations, the Plaintiff was suspended from participating in any affair/activity of the Board under Article 32(vii) of the Rules and Regulations. The Secretary of the BCCI also issued show cause notices to the Plaintiff under Article 32(iv) of the Rules and Regulations of BCCI on 26th April 2010 and 6th May 2010.

6. The Plaintiff by his reply to the first show cause notice dated 15th May 2010 addressed to the Hon. Secretary of the BCCI, inter alia, contended that the Secretary should be wholly excluded from the disciplinary proceedings, and the President as also the General Council Members should recuse themselves as they may be required to give evidence. It was further contended that the Plaintiff has great respect for the President and the Governing Council Members, save the Secretary. The Plaintiff also addressed a letter dated 25th May 2010 to the President demanding that he should recuse himself on the ground, inter alia, that the Plaintiff would be calling the President as a witness before the Disciplinary Committee.

7. A third show cause notice dated 31st May 2010 was issued by the Secretary of BCCI to the Plaintiff under Article 32(iv) of the 6 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc Rules and Regulations. The Plaintiff forwarded his replies dated 31st May 2010 and 15th June 2010 to the second as well as third show cause notice respectively. On 19th June 2010 the Secretary of BCCI referred the charges levelled against the Plaintiff to the Disciplinary Committee and also forwarded the copies of the show cause notices and replies received from the Plaintiff to all the members.

8. On 19th June 2010 the President addressed a letter to the Secretary recusing himself from the proceedings. On the same day i.e. on 19th June 2010 the President issued a direction to the Secretary to convene a SGM in order to ratify/approve the Secretary's decision to refer the charges against the Plaintiff to the Disciplinary Committee and to constitute a Disciplinary Committee for holding an inquiry against the Plaintiff. Pursuant to the above, the Secretary on the same day i.e. on 19th June 2010 issued a notice for convening a SGM on 3rd July 2010 at 3.00 p.m. at Cricket Centre, Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai to transact the following business :- To ratify the action of the Hon.Secretary BCCI in "1. referring the charges against Mr.Lalit K. Modi contained in the three show cause notices to the Disciplinary Committee of the BCCI for further proceedings; To reconstitute the Disciplinary Committee of

2. BCCI for holding enquiry against Mr.Lalit K. Modi; To discuss and take any other appropriate 3. decisions with regard to the conduct of the IPL and matters arising thereof."

9. On 3rd July 2010 the SGM was conducted. At the said meeting 7 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc the decision to refer the charges against the Plaintiff to the Disciplinary Committee was unanimously ratified/approved and the Disciplinary Committee comprising of Mr. Arun Jaitley, Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia and Mr. Chirayu Amin was constituted to enquire into the charges against the Plaintiff. Item 2 pertaining to the reconstitution of the Disciplinary Committee for holding enquiry against the Plaintiff is recorded in the Minutes of the said SGM as follows :- "Item No.2 : To reconstitute the Disciplinary Committee of BCCI for holding enquiry against Mr.Lalit Modi : The Chairman informed the members that a Disciplinary Committee was constituted at the AGM of the Board held on 27th September 2009. The members of this Committee were Mr.Shashank Manohar, Mr.Arun Jaitley and Mr.Chirayu Amin. The Chairman informed the members that Mr.Lalit Modi had leveled some allegations against him and also Mr.Lalit Modi stated in his reply that he would like to call me as one of the witnesses during the enquiry. In view of this, the Chairman thought it fit to recuse himself as a member of the Disciplinary Committee and requested the members to suggest another member of the Board to replace him as a member of Disciplinary Committee. The house unanimously approved Mr.Jyotiraditya Scindia as a member of the Disciplinary Committee along with Mr.Arun Jaitley and Mr.Chirayu Amin."

10. The Disciplinary Committee by its letter dated 3rd July 2010 addressed to the Plaintiff fixed the first date of hearing on 16th July

2010. However, the Plaintiff through his Advocates addressed a letter/ application dated 6th July 2010 to the Disciplinary Committee demanding recusal of all the members of the Disciplinary Committee 8 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc and seeking appointment of mutually acceptable independent legal luminaries to constitute the Disciplinary Committee. In paragraph 2 of the said letter the Advocates for the Plaintiff have, inter alia, recorded as follows :- "2. We reiterate that media reports and the reports of the press conference addressed by the Honorary President and the Honorary Secretary of the B.C.C.I. indicate that a Disciplinary Committee consisting of Mr.Chirayu Amin, Mr.Arun Jaitley and Mr.Jyotiraditya Scindia has been constituted to examine the allegations leveled against our client in the three Show Cause Notices issued to him. If this be so, then this would be both unfair to our client and occasion a serious miscarriage of justice, for the reasons more particularly stated below." The letter/application made on behalf of the Plaintiff was responded to by the Disciplinary Committee by its letter dated 6th July 2010. By the said reply, the Disciplinary Committee advised the Plaintiff to take up the issue of recusal in the hearing scheduled on 16th July 2010.

11. On 8th July 2010 the Plaintiff filed Writ Petition No.1370 of 2010 before a Division Bench of this Court challenging the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee in the SGM on 3rd July

2010. He also sought various other reliefs in the said Writ Petition. This Court by its order dated 15th July 2010 dismissed the said Writ Petition No.1370 of 2010 filed by the Plaintiff and held that the role of the Disciplinary Committee was only to submit its report and the governing body would thereafter take a decision. It is also held that the issue of recusal should be left to the Disciplinary Committee and the Plaintiff may challenge the constitution of the Disciplinary 9 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc Committee along with the challenge to the final order of punishment, if any. It was also held that it is for the Disciplinary Committee and the board to address the requirements of Rule 1(q) of the Rules and Regulations.

12. On 20th July 2010 the Plaintiff through his Advocate forwarded additional submissions to the Disciplinary Committee, for recusal of the entire Disciplinary Committee. On 25th July 2010, the BCCI submitted its objections to the application for recusal filed by the Plaintiff i.e. the Charge Sheeted Administrator (`CSA'). Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said written objections are reproduced hereunder :- The Disciplinary Committee has been constituted "2. as per regulation 1(q) of the Memorandum, Rules & Regulations of BCCI. This Committee was constituted (reconstituted) by the decision of the General Body at the Special General Meeting held on 3rd July 2010. Under the BCCI constitution, the Disciplinary Committee has been given the responsibility of conducting an enquiry into the allegations of misconduct etc. against the CSA. This responsibility would oblige the Committee to proceed with the enquiry not withstanding any preliminary objection raised by the CSA. There would be no possibility of any enquiry being undertaken by any Committee constituted by the BCCI if the CSA's contentions are to be gone into at this preliminary stage. This is so because the application for recusal of the members of the Committee clearly demands that no one from the BCCI would be acceptable to the CSA to be a member of the Committee. The constitution of the BCCI neither provides for nor recognizes any such procedure of enquiry into charges of Misconduct etc. against an Administrator by any third parties.

3. It is most humbly submitted that the very 10 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc authority of the Disciplinary Committee stems only from the BCCI constitution and not otherwise. Hence the Committee would have no power to refer the charges against the CSA to any outside body of persons unconnected to the BCCI. By the same reasoning, the Committee would not have any authority to consider recusal of all the three members. Such a relief cannot be afforded to the CSA since it would amount to frustrating the proceedings, avoid his obligation to face an enquiry by the duly constituted Committee and also pervert the BCCI constitution. The CSA is one amongst several Administrators in the BCCI and no special treatment ought to be given. All Administrators and Officials are bound by the BCCI Constitution, which forms a binding contract. Hence, to be judged by one's peers would be obligatory as per the Contract and binding without exception. Hence, to even consider such a course that would make the enquiry against the CSA by the Committee infructuous, would be opposed to the BCCI Constitution and beyond the powers vested in the Committee." The BCCI thereafter by an order dated 11th August 2010 dismissed the recusal application filed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed Writ Petition No.1909 of 2010 against the order of the Disciplinary Committee dismissing his recusal application, which Writ Petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 15th September 2010, inter alia, on the ground that the Division Bench finds substance in the order passed in Writ Petition No.1370 of 2010 specifically observing that in case the Disciplinary Committee did not accept the petitioner's objection on the ground of bias, nothing stops the petitioner from challenging the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee along with the challenge he might raise against the final order of punishment, if any. The Plaintiff has filed special leave petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 11 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc being SLP Nos.15249/2010 and 27157/2010 challenging the two Orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15th July 2010 and 15th September 2010 respectively. The said Special Leave Petitions are pending and no interim relief is granted in favour of the Plaintiff. In the Special Leave Petitions the Plaintiff has taken a ground that the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee is ultra vires the constitution of the Defendant no.1.

13. In the meeting of the Disciplinary Committee held on 28th September 2010, the committee recorded that the Plaintiff has moved two applications. Both the applications were related to BCCI's objection on the production of certain documents including the drafts exchanged during the course of preparation of Mr.John Loffhagen's witness statement (a witness of BCCI before the Disciplinary Committee). After dealing with the said applications in detail, the Disciplinary Committee rejected the said applications of the Plaintiff and in paragraph 6 of its proceedings, inter alia, recorded the conduct of the Plaintiff who, according to them was procrastinating the proceedings by taking one stand after another. In this regard, the Disciplinary Committee noted : "6. We are constrained to observe that every day at the commencement of hearing; series of applications are moved in order to delay the conduct of proceedings. Either oral requests of written applications are moved in order to adjourn the proceedings on one pretext or the other. We have so far avoided mentioning that. This is notwithstanding the fact that it has been pointed out that our endeavour is to complete this enquiry within six months as indicated in the BCCI Regulations. Even in the matter of conducting the cross examination efforts are being made to delay the proceedings. Three 12 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc witnesses namely Mr.John Loffhagen, Mr.Peter Griffiths and Mr.Paul Manning have twice come to give their evidence from England. A large number of questions is confined to contents of the document, the existence of which is not disputed. Even in between questions, more than a reasonable time is spent as a result of which the proceedings have been getting delayed. Today when we assembled again for the evening session, an application is moved before us asking us to cancel the hearing fixed in Mumbai tomorrow on the 29th September, 2010. This hearing was specifically fixed on 15th September 2010 in order to ensure that the witnesses do not have to come back again in order to give their evidence."

14. On 29th September 2010 the AGM of BCCI was conducted. The Disciplinary Committee which is normally appointed at every AGM was not appointed and the said appointment was not even part of the agenda. On 14th October 2010 the Plaintiff sought copies of the Minutes of AGM held on 29th September 2010 which was supplied by the Defendant no.1 on 20th November 2010. On 21st November 2010 the Plaintiff filed an application before the Disciplinary Committee for discontinuation of the proceedings till a validly formed Disciplinary Committee is appointed. It was contended by the Plaintiff that Rule 1(q) of the Rules and Regulations requires the Disciplinary Committee to be appointed at every AGM with President as one of its members. After the SGM of 3rd July 2010, the President was replaced by Mr.Jyotiraditya Scindia. It was further contended that since no Disciplinary Committee was appointed in the AGM held on 21st November 2010, the tenure of the current Disciplinary Committee had come to an end. Upon submission of the said application by the Plaintiff, the Disciplinary Committee had raised certain queries which were responded to by the 13 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc Plaintiff vide his response dated 22nd November 2010. On 23rd November 2010 the BCCI responded to the Plaintiff's application regarding tenure of the Disciplinary Committee. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said response of the BCCI is reproduced hereunder :- "4. The Minutes of the SGM held on 3rd July 2010 clearly disclose the decision of the General Body "to reconstitute the Disciplinary Committee of the BCCI for holding enquiry against Mr.Lalit Modi" (emphasis supplied). The unanimous approval to reconstitute such a committee was peculiar to the enquiry into the charges of misconduct by the CSA and nothing else. Particular emphasis is laid on the word `reconstitute' as opposed to a replacement for the President. Hence, the intention of the General Body was to reconstitute the Committee afresh only for a specific purpose.

5. The BCCI strongly opposes any argument to the contrary. The present Committee before whom the CSA has failed to appear even once in person, is a Committee specially constituted only to enquire into the charges contained in the three show cause notices and the replies made by the CSA and for no other purpose. Having brought about a situation whereby the President BCCI stepped down from the Committee constituted for the year 2009-10 thereby leading to the dissolution of that Committee, it would not be open to the CSA to now contend that yet another Committee should have been constituted in the AGM held on 29th September 2010 to continue this enquiry. In this regard it is of no concern of the CSA whether the BCCI constituted a Disciplinary Committee in accordance with regulation 1(q) in the said AGM held on 29th September 2010 since the present Disciplinary Committee, specially constituted due to the objections of the CSA is yet to conclude its proceedings. Hypothetical arguments that the regulations do not permit the formation of two Disciplinary Committees are not open to the CSA. Equally, it is of no concern of the CSA whether there is a Committee in existence to enquire into any 14 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc misconduct committed by any other Administrator. The present objection is raised by the CSA only to prolong and/or frustrate the process of enquiry." In the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee held on 23rd November 2010 the parties were called upon to make their written submissions on the position of the Disciplinary Committee and the cross examination of the witnesses was deferred till a decision was taken on the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Committee.

15. On 27th November 2010 the Secretary of BCCI issued a notice for a SGM to be held on 11th December 2010 at 11.00 a.m. at BCCI Head Quarters, Cricket Centre, Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai to transact the following business : To extend the tenure of the Disciplinary "1. Committee consisting of Mr.Arun Jaitley, Mr.Jyotiraditya M. Scindia and Mr.Chirayu Amin till the end of enquiry being conducted against Mr.Lalit K. Modi; To ratify the proceedings of the Disciplinary 2. Committee consisting of Mr.Arun Jaitley, Mr.Jyotiraditya M. Scindia and Mr.Chirayu Amin which was specially constituted at the Special General Meeting of the Board held on 3rd July 2010 to conduct the enquiry against Mr.Lalit K. Modi;

3. To constitute Disciplinary Committee for the year 2010-11 as per regulation 1(q) of Rules and Regulations of the Board." The explanatory statement of the meeting reads as follows :- "We are informed that there may be a need to ratify the 15 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc continuation of the Disciplinary Committee constituted at the Special General Meeting of the Board held on 3rd July 2010 to enquire against Mr.Lalit K. Modi. As per regulation 1(q), the Disciplinary Committee constituted for the year 2009-10 could not conduct the enquiry against Mr.Lalit K. Modi since the President BCCI recused himself. The Disciplinary Committee consisting of the President, Mr.Arun Jaitley and Mr.Chirayu R. Amin was otherwise continuing till 29th September 2010. The General Body had in the Special General Meeting held on 3rd July 2010 specifically constituted a separate Disciplinary Committee for conducting the enquiry against Mr.Lalit K. Modi till conclusion. Since the proceedings have not concluded and have extended beyond 29th September 2010 we are advised that out of abundant caution, such proceedings be ratified and it be resolved clearly that the tenure of this committee would subsist till it gives its report on conclusion of the enquiry against Mr.Lalit K. Modi. In the Annual General Meeting held on 29th September 2010 the item relating to constitution of the Disciplinary Committee as per regulation 1(q) which is normally taken up in every Annual General Meeting was left out. Hence, it becomes necessary to constitute the Disciplinary Committee as per the amended rule 1(q) with President BCCI and two present administrators. Hence the requirement for the above motions. Although a Special General Meeting or any General Meeting entails a notice of 21 days, the President under rule 17(iii) is empowered at his discretion to direct the Secretary to convene a Special General meeting at shorter notice in which case a notice of at least 10 days shall be given. This above notice is issued under this clause."

16. On 11th December 2010 the SGM of BCCI was held. As regards the aforestated agenda item nos.1 to 3, the Minutes of the Meeting record as follows :- 16 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc "Agenda Item No.1 : To extend the tenure of the Disciplinary Committee consisting of Mr.Arun Jaitley, Mr.Jyotiraditya M. Scindia and Mr.Chirayu Amin till the end of enquiry being conducted against Mr.Lalit K. Modi : The Chairman proposed the extension of tenure of the Disciplinary Committee consisting of Mr.Arun Jaitley, Mr.Jyotiradiaya Scindia and Mr.Chirayu amin till the end of the enquiry being conducted against Mr.Lalit K. Modi. The House unanimously approved the extension of tenure of the Disciplinary Committee as proposed by the Chairman. Agenda Item No.2. : To ratify the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee consisting of Mr.Arun Jaitley, Mr.Jyotiraditya Scindia and Mr.Chirayu Amin which was specially constituted at the Special General Meeting of the Board held on 3rd July 2010 to conduct the enquiry against Mr.Lalit K. Modi. The House unanimously ratified the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee consisting of Mr.Arun Jaitley, Mr.Jyotiraditya Scindia and Mr.Chirayu Amin which was constituted at the Special General Meeting of the Board on 3rd July 2010 to conduct the enquiry against Mr.Lalit K. Modi. Agenda Item No.3 : To constitute Disciplinary Committee for the year 2010-11 as per regulation 1(q) of Rules and Regulations of the Board. The House unanimously approved the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee consisting of Mr.Shahank Manohar, Arun Jaitley and Mr.Chirayu Amin for the year 2010-11." 17 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc

17. According to the Plaintiff, on 12th/13th December 2010 there were media reports to the effect that the BCCI had called a SGM to decide on the Plaintiff's application dated 21st November 2010. In view thereof, by an application dated 16th December 2010, the Plaintiff sought copies of the notice of SGM, the attendance sheet of the SGM and the Minutes of the SGM.. On 20th December 2010, the Plaintiff forwarded his reminder mail seeking the said documents. On 22nd December 2010 the BCCI forwarded the notice of the AGM and draft of Minutes of AGM.. Thereafter on 24th December 2010 the above suit was filed by the Plaintiff. An ad-interim order dated 25th December 2010, directing the Defendants not to hold any meeting up to 10th January 2011 was passed, which was continued from time to time and the Notice of Motion was ultimately taken up for hearing and final disposal on 2nd February 2011 i.e. after the parties completed their pleadings in the above Notice of Motion.

18. Mr Ram Jethmalani the Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff submitted that the original Disciplinary Committee comprising of Mr. Shashank Manohar (President), Mr. Arun Jaitely and Mr. Chirayu Amin was constituted at the Annual General Meeting held on 24th September, 2009. In the minutes of the said AGM it is expressly recorded that the said Disciplinary Committee was for the year 2009-2010. In the SGM held on 3rd July 2010, Mr. Sashank Manohar (President) was substituted by Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia. In view thereof a new/fresh Disciplinary Committee was required to be appointed at the next AGM of BCCI held on 24h September 2010 i.e. the Disciplinary Committee for the year 2010-2011. However, no Disciplinary Committee was appointed at the AGM held on 24th 18 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc September 2010. Later by a notice dated 27th November 2010 issued by the Secretary of BCCI, a SGM was called on 11th November 2010. In the said Notice, it is recorded that the said SGM is called as directed by the President to transact the business set out therein. In the Explanatory Statement to the said Notice it is recorded by the Secretary as follows :- “Although a Special General Meeting or any General Meeting entails a notice of 21 days, the President under Rule 17(iii) is empowered at his discretion to direct the Secretary to convene a Special General Meeting at shorter notice in which case a Notice of atleast 10 days shall be given. This above Notice is issued under this clause.” Mr. Jethmalani submitted that the BCCI is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (the Act) and is therefore governed by the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder i.e. the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 (the Rules). The provisions pertaining to the Annual General Meeting (AGM) and Extra Ordinary General Meeting (EOGM) are contained in Sections 26 and 28 respectively of the said Act. Rules 25 and 27 of the Rules provide that atleast 21 days Notice is required to be given to the Members before the day appointed for such meetings. However, Rule 17(iii) of the BCCI Rules/Bye-laws provides that the President is empowered at his discretion, to direct the Secretary to convene a Special General Meeting at a shorter notice in which case a Notice of atleast 10 days shall be given. Mr. Jethmalani submitted that Rule 17(iii)of the BCCI Rules is therefore contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, which is a dominant statute and therefore Rule 17(iii) of the BCCI Rules is illegal, null and void. In support of this contention Mr. Jethmalani relied on a decision of 19 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc the Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dated 20.04.2001 in Mr. R. Karuppun, Advocate Vs. Mr. P. K. Rajagopal, Secretary, The Advocates’ Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai and 4 others in Application No.1843 of 2001 in O.A. No.291 of 2001 in C.S. No.249 of 2001. In that case, Clause 70 of the bye-laws of the Society provided that, Notices of the meeting of General Body of the Association shall be deemed sufficient under the Rules if affixed on the Notice Board of the Association 3 days before the day fixed for the meeting.” It was therefore inter alia held by the Court as follows : “As stated above, if any of bye-laws are contrary to Sections 26, 28 of the Act read with rules 25 and 27 of the Rules that would be invalid. Therefore it appears that Clause 70 of the bye-laws is not valid. In view of specific provisions in the Act bye-law 70 cannot be said to be in force. Therefore not withstanding Clause 70 of the bye-laws the Annual General Meeting constituted on 19th and 27th March 2001 was not a validly constituted Annual General Meeting.” Mr. Jethmalani therefore submitted that even in the present case the Agenda Notice itself being illegal, null and void, the meeting held and the resolutions passed thereat, are illegal, null and void and cannot be acted upon by the BCCI.

19. Mr. Jethmalani next contended that Rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules provides that the Board shall at every AGM appoint a committee consisting of 3 persons of whom the President shall be one of them to enquire into and deal with the matter relating to any act of indiscipline or misconduct or violation of any rules and regulations by any player, umpire, team official, administrator, selector or any person appointed or employed by BCCI. He submitted that BCCI is 20 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc therefore empowered to appoint a Disciplinary Committee only under Rule 1(q) and there is no other Rule whereunder the BCCI can create a Disciplinary Committee. He submitted that the mandate given under Rule 1(q) to BCCI is to appoint only one Disciplinary Committee in a year and that too at every AGM. The term of the Disciplinary Committee therefore appointed at an AGM of BCCI necessarily comes to an end immediately upon the next AGM of BCCI being held. The BCCI therefore cannot deviate from the mandate provided in Rule 1(q) of the Rules and form more than one Disciplinary Committee in a year or extend the tenure of a Disciplinary Committee constituted in the earlier year, which under Rule 1(q) is bound to come to an end when a fresh AGM of BCCI is held in a particular year. He further submitted that the Rules and Regulations of BCCI is a contract between the members and one cannot impute any inherent powers in such a contract. Mr. Jethmalani submitted that the Disciplinary Committee which was constituted on 24th September 2009 continued throughout the year with only one of the members being changed at the meeting held on 3rd July 2010. The duration of the said Disciplinary Committee came to an end on 24th/29th September 2010 and a Disciplinary Committee could be recreated only by fresh exercise of powers at the AGM. However, such a new Disciplinary Committee was being created for the first time under Item 3 of the Agenda Notice dated 27th November 2010, namely, “To constitute Disciplinary Committee of the year 2010-11 as per regulation 1(q) of Rules and Regulations of the Board.” Mr. Jethmalani submitted that therefore Items 1 and 2 of the said Notice namely to extend the tenure of the Disciplinary Committee consisting of Mr. Arun Jaitely, Mr. Jyotiraditya M. Scindia and Mr. 21 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc Chirayu Amin till the end of enquiry being conducted against Mr. Lalit K. Modi and to ratify the proceedings of the said Disciplinary Committee are admittedly not under Rule 1(q). He submitted that in fact Items 1 and 2 of the said Agenda Notice do not even purport to create a Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee appointed on 24th September 2009 which is a quasi judicial body therefore came to an end by afflux of time when the next AGM was held on 24th September 2010 and the concept of extension does not apply to such a body. He submitted that the question of ratification also does not arise since ratification is an act of agency. In support of this contention he relied on the definition of the word ratification in Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, Second Edition, Volume 2 L-Z. Mr. Jethmalani therefore submitted that all the proceedings held before the Disciplinary Committee after the AGM held on 24th September 2010 in which a fresh Disciplinary Committee was admittedly not created are of no consequence and “in law a big zero.” Mr. Jethmalani submitted that the Plaintiff has therefore made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiff. He submits that grave loss will be caused to the Plaintiff if he is asked to challenge the issues raised by him in this Suit after the final decision of the BCCI i.e. in the event of the Plaintiff being found guilty of the allegations raised against him in the show cause notices. Mr. Jethmalani therefore submitted that for the aforesaid reasons the Agenda Notice dated 27th November 2010, the SGM held on 11th December 2010 and the resolutions passed at the said SGM are illegal, bad in law and null and void and the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the Notice of Motion. 22 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc

20. Mr. R. A. Dada the Learned Senior Advocate appearing for BCCI in response to Mr. Jethmalani’s submission that Rule 17(iii) of the BCCI Rules is inconsistent with the dominant statute i.e. the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,1975 and the Rules made thereunder, first drew my attention to Section 2(j) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 wherein the term Special Resolution is defined, more particularly to the proviso of the said Section which provides that if all the members entitled to vote at a meeting so agree, a Resolution may be passed as a Special Resolution at a meeting of which a notice of less than the period prescribed has been given. Mr. Dada submitted that the members of the BCCI have agreed to be governed by the BCCI Rules and 17(iii) being one of those Rules is therefore agreed/accepted by the members of BCCI. In view thereof Rule 17(iii) cannot be said to be inconsistent with or ultra vires any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 as alleged by the Plaintiff. Mr. Dada also submitted that in any event Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 provides that no act or proceeding of a registered society shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the ground of any defect or irregularity in such act or proceeding not affecting the merits of the case. Mr. Dada has submitted that the Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in his decision in Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate (Supra) has neither considered Section 2(j) nor Section 55 of the Act and has therefore with great respect given an erroneous finding in the case before him. However, Mr. Dada has pointed out that the very same Single Judge in a subsequent decision in Mahajna Educational Board V/s. the State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. dated 4.01.2005 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 4399/2001, 11019 /2002, 448/2003 and 23 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc 37048/2004 considered Section 55 of the Act and has inter alia held in Paragraph 19 that “It is true that as per Section 55 no act of the Society shall be invalid merely on the ground of vacancy in the membership of the Society or due to any defect in the formation of the General Body or any irregularity in the proceeding.” Mr. Dada therefore submitted that Rule 17(iii) of the BCCI Rules is valid and cannot be said to be inconsistent with or ultra vires to the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. He therefore submitted that the Agenda Notice dated 27th November, 2010 and the consequent meeting held on 11th November 2010 and the resolutions passed thereat cannot be held to be illegal, null and void as alleged by the Plaintiff and the submissions made on behalf of the Plaintiff in this regard deserves to be rejected.

21. Mr. Dada next submitted that a Disciplinary Committee was constituted at the AGM held on 24th September, 2009. The said committee comprised of the President, Mr. Arun Jaitely and Mr. Chirayu Amin. However, since the Plaintiff contended that he may call the President as his witness to give evidence before the Disciplinary Committee, the President recused himself and by Agenda Notice dated 19th June 2010 an SGM was called on 3rd July 2010 to inter alia transact the following business : “Item 2 :- to reconstitute the Disciplinary Committee of BCCI for holding enquiry against Mr. Lalit K. Modi.” Mr. Dada also pointed out Paragraph 2 of the letter dated 6th July 2010 addressed by the Solicitor of the Plaintiff to BCCI wherein it is inter alia recorded by the Plaintiff’s own Solicitors as under : 24 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc “We reiterate that media reports and the reports of the press conference addressed by the Honorary President and the Honorary Secretary of the BCCI indicate that a Disciplinary Committee consisting of Mr. Chirayu Amin; Mr. Arun Jaitely; and Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia has been constituted to examine the allegations leveled against our clients in the show cause notices issued to him.” Mr. Dada therefore submitted that the Disciplinary Committee which was constituted at the General Meeting held on 3rd July 2010 was a specific committee constituted to examine the allegations leveled against the Plaintiff in the 3 show cause notices issued to him. He submitted that the terms of reference to the said specific committee were the 3 show cause notices issued to the Plaintiff. The submission on behalf of the Plaintiff that the reconstituted committee comes to an end on 24th/29th September 2010 is itself misconceived. The term of the specific committee was till the completion of its assignment and there is no provision for such a reconstituted committee to come to an end in the BCCI Rules. There is no warrant even under Rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules that a committee has to be wound up even if the terms of reference are not fulfilled. Mr. Dada submitted that Items 1 and 2 of the Agenda Notice dated 27th November 2010, viz. (i) extension of the tenure of the Committee constituted on 3rd July 2010 till the end of enquiry against the Plaintiff and (ii) to ratify the proceedings of the said Disciplinary Committee constituted on 3rd July 2010, was as explained in the explanatory statement, only by way of abundant caution.

22. Dealing with the submission advanced by Mr. Jethmalani that under Rule 1(q) BCCI is entitled to appoint only one Disciplinary 25 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc Committee at every AGM of BCCI and the term of such Disciplinary Committee automatically comes to an end at the time of holding of the next AGM, Mr. Dada submitted that such an interpretation would defeat the object of the Rule namely to take steps and punish the wrong doers if found guilty. Referring to Rule 32 of the BCCI Rules, Mr. Dada submitted that sub-clause 2 of Rule 32 provides that in the event of any complaint being received in the subject matter of any act of indiscipline or misconduct or violation of any of the Rules and Regulations by any player, umpire, team official, selector or any person appointed or employed by BCCI, the President shall refer the same within 48 hours to a Commissioner appointed by the Board to make a preliminary enquiry. The Commissioner shall make a preliminary enquiry, call for explanations from the concerned persons and submit the report to the President who shall forthwith forward the same to the Disciplinary Committee. Mr. Dada therefore submitted that in a year there can also be two, three, four or more delinquents before the Disciplinary Committee. As and by way of illustration he submitted that if after a Disciplinary Committee comprising of the President and two members i.e. A, B and C is constituted at an AGM of the BCCI and thereafter reports of three delinquents ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ are forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee so constituted and if delinquent D, E and F each have valid objections individually against A, B and C, respectively, and if member A recuses himself from the proceedings against delinquent D and member B recuses himself from the proceedings against delinquent E and member C recuses himself from the proceedings against delinquent F there would be no option for the BCCI but to appoint three different Committees to proceed against delinquents D, E and F in one year. If this is not done and if 26 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc the rigid interpretation as sought by the Plaintiff is to be given to Rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules all the delinquents, viz. D, E, and F would go scot free and would not be punished though guilty of misconduct/indiscipline. Mr. Dada therefore submitted that as long as Rule 1(q) specifically does not provide that the BCCI cannot form more than one Disciplinary Committee in a year the said Rule 1(q) has to be interpreted to mean that more than one Disciplinary Committee can be formed in a year to deal with the cases of delinquents and the interpretation advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff which would destroy the object of the Rule cannot be applied/accepted. Mr. Dada has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. V/s. Alok Kumar (2010)5SCC 349 wherein it is inter alia held that it would be appropriate to adopt an interpretation which would not take away the discretion contemplated under the Rule but would further the object.

23. Mr. Dada further submitted that whilst interpreting Rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules, it is necessary that the Court takes into account the doctrine of necessity. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Election Commission of India & Anr. V/s. Dr. Subramanium Swamy & Anr. Reported in 1996 4 SCC104, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the doctrine of necessity is not allowed full play in certain unavoidable situations it would impede the course of justice itself and the defaulting party will benefit therefrom.

24. Mr. Dada next submitted that the Plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case or case of irreparable injury being caused to him. He 27 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc has not pointed out how the continuation of the same Disciplinary Committee before whom he was appearing since July 2010 would cause prejudice to him. The Disciplinary Committee is more in the nature of a fact finding committee. It is not going to pronounce any punishment against the Plaintiff. As held by the two division benches of this Court all the objections of the Plaintiff can in any event be considered finally if at all he is punished and if he impugns the order of punishment. It would therefore be in the interest of justice if the Disciplinary Committee gathers all the necessary facts and the entire evidence is elicited. There are witnesses coming from abroad who are being examined by the BCCI. If the important evidence which is required to be immediately gathered is lost, the whole object of the enquiry shall stand defeated. The whole game plan of the Plaintiff is to delay and defeat the process of enquiry. This is clear from the fact that though the SGM dated 3rd July 2010 was called by giving notice to the members of only 15 days, the same was not challenged by the Plaintiff in the earlier proceedings. The change of Disciplinary Committee was also not challenged earlier by interpreting Rule 1(q) as is now sought to be done. This only shows that on some ground or the other, the Plaintiff from time to time by initiating legal proceedings is attempting to obstruct the Disciplinary Committee from going ahead with the proceedings. Mr. Dada therefore submitted that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the BCCI and against the Plaintiff. Mr. Dada therefore submitted that the Notice of Motion deserves to be dismissed with cost.

25. I have considered the submissions advanced by the Learned Senior Advocates appearing for the parties. I have also considered the case laws cited by them. 28 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc

26. It is correct that Sections 26 and 28 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 read with rules 25 and 27 require that the Notice of Annual General Meeting as well as the Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Society is required to be given to the Members at aleast 21 days before the day appointed for such meetings. However, the term Special Resolution is defined under section 2(j) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 as under : “(j) “special resolution” means a resolution passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of such members of a registered society entitled to vote as are present in person or by proxy (where proxies are allowed) at a general meeting of which a notice of not less than such period as may be prescribed, specifying the intention to propose the resolution as a special resolution, has been duly given : Provided that, if all the members entitled to vote at any such meeting so agree, a resolution may be passed as special resolution at a meeting of which a notice of less than the period prescribed under this clause has been given:” Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 itself provides that a notice less than the period prescribed under the Act can be given if all the members entitled to vote at a meeting of the Society so agree and a Resolution may be passed as a Special Resolution at such meeting. 29 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc As submitted by Mr. Dada the members of the BCCI have agreed to be governed by the BCCI Rules including Rule 17(iii) which provides that the President may at his discretion direct the Secretary to convene a Special General Meeting at shorter notice in which case a notice of atleast 10 days shall be given. Therefore Rule 17(iii) of the BCCI Rules in my view is in no way inconsistent with or ultra vires Sections 26 and/or 28 read with rules 25 and 27 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 as alleged by the Plaintiff. The BCCI was therefore entitled to issue notice dated 27th November 2010 calling for a Special General Meeting on 11th December 2010 thereby giving a notice of 14 days to its members. Even otherwise Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 provides that no act or proceeding of a registered society or any committee or of any officer of the society shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the ground of any defect or any irregularity in such act or proceeding not affecting the merits of the case. Therefore even if Section 2(j) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 would not have been in existence and if BCCI would have given notice convening a Special General Meeting to its members of only 14 days instead of 21 days, all acts and proceedings of BCCI taken pursuant to such notice would have been treated as valid because the notice being short of 7 days would only amount to a defect or irregularity, in the proceedings of the Society which would not have affected the merits of the case in any manner. In fact in the decision of the Learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate (Supra), the Learned Single Judge has with respect reached an erroneous finding that clause 70 of the bye-laws of the Second Respondent which provides that “notices of the meeting of the general body of the 30 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc association shall be deemed sufficient under the rules if affixed in the notice board of the association 3 days before the day fixed for the meeting” is contrary to and inconsistent with Sections 26 and 28 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 read with Rules 25 and 27 would be invalid, since the Learned Single Judge neither considered Section 2(j) nor Section 55 of the Act whilst arriving at the aforestated finding. In fact as pointed out by Mr. Dada the same Learned Single Judge in his subsequent decision dated 4.01.2005 in Mahajna Educational Board (Supra) has in Paragraph 19 inter alia held that “It is true that as per Section 55 no act of the Society shall be invalid merely on the ground of vacancy in the membership of the Society or due to any defect in the formation of the General Body or any irregularity in the proceeding.” In view thereof, the submission of Mr. Jethmalani that Rule 17(iii) of the BCCI Rules is inconsistent with Sections 26 and 28 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 read 25 and 27 of the Rules and consequently the Notice of the SGM dated 27th November 2010 and the meeting dated 11th December 2010 and the resolutions passed thereat are illegal, null and void cannot be accepted and the said submission stands rejected.

27. The next contention of Mr. Jethmalani mainly pertains to the interpretation of rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules. It is true that Rule 1(q) provides that the Board shall at every AGM appoint a committee consisting of 3 persons of whom the President shall be one of them to enquire into and deal with the matter relating to any act of indiscipline or misconduct or violation of any rules and regulations by any player, 31 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc umpire, team officer, administrator, selector or any person appointed or employed by BCCI. A Disciplinary Committee was appointed in the AGM of BCCI held on 24th September 2009 comprising of the President, Mr. Arun Jaitely and Mr. Chirayu Amin. Though Rule 1(q) specifically provides that the President of BCCI shall be one of the members of Disciplinary Committee, in the present case since the Plaintiff expressed his desire to call the President as his witness in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee, the President recused himself and a Special General Body Meeting was called on 3rd July, 2010 to transact the business as notified in Item 2 of the Agenda Notice dated 19th June 2010 namely, “To reconstitute the Disciplinary Committee of BCCI for holding enquiry against Mr. Lalit K. Modi.” The said notice leaves no room for doubt that the Disciplinary Committee constituted on 3rd July 2010 of Mr. Arun Jaitely, Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia and Mr. Chirayu Amin (excluding the President) was specifically constituted to look into the charges against the Plaintiff. The argument advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Disciplinary Committee constituted on 3rd July 2010 was the only Disciplinary Committee of BCCI under Rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules and that after the 3rd July 2010 the Disciplinary Committee constituted at the AGM of 24th September 2009 comprising of the President, Mr. Arun Jaitley and Mr. Chirayu Amin was no longer in existence cannot be accepted, also because in the case of any other delinquent in that year the Disciplinary Committee would have to be constituted of three members of which the President would be one of them. In the case of the Plaintiff the President had recused himself in exceptional circumstances and the new Disciplinary Committee was constituted/reconstituted for holding enquiry against the Plaintiff 32 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc which committee would not be able to proceed in the case of other delinquent/s. In fact the Attorneys of the Plaintiff referring to the SGM dated 3rd July 2010 have also inter alia recorded in their letter dated 6th July 2010 addressed to BCCI that : “We reiterate that media reports and the reports of the press conference addressed by the Honorary President and Honorary Secretary of the BCCI indicate that a Disciplinary Committee consisting of Mr. Chirayu Amin, Mr. Arun Jaitely and Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia has been constituted to examine the allegations leveled against our clients in the show cause notices issued to him.” Thus I am of the view that the Disciplinary Committee constituted by the BCCI at its Special General Meeting held on 3rd July 2010 was a specific committee constituted to examine the allegations leveled against the Plaintiff in the 3 show cause notices issued to him. I am in complete agreement with Mr. Dada, the Learned Advocate appearing for BCCI that the terms of reference qua the Disciplinary Committee constituted on 3rd July 2010 was to examine the allegations leveled against the Plaintiff in the 3 show cause notices issued to him and the duration of the said committee would come to an end only after it has accomplished its assignment and there is no provision for such a committee to come to an end in the BCCI Rules. There is no warrant even under Rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules that the committee has to be wound up even if the terms of reference are not fulfilled. As set out in the Explanatory Statement to the Agenda Notice dated 27th November 2011, Items 1 and 2 of the said Agenda Notice which concern extending the tenure of the Disciplinary Committee appointed on 3rd July 2010 till the end of enquiry being conducted against the Plaintiff and to ratify the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee constituted on 3rd July 2010, was only by way of abundant caution and was not required in law. 33 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc

28. This leaves the Court to decide the issue whether the BCCI in view of the language used in Rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules is allowed to appoint more than one Disciplinary Committee in a given year. Rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules provides that the Board shall at every Annual General Meeting appoint a committee consisting of three persons of whom the President shall be one of them to inquire into and deal with the matter relating to any act of indiscipline or misconduct, etc. As set out hereinabove, Mr. Jethmalani has on behalf of the Plaintiff submitted that Rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules has to be interpreted to mean that there cannot be more than one Disciplinary Committee in a year and such a Disciplinary Committee has to be appointed only at the AGM of BCCI. Mr. Dada on behalf of the BCCI refutes the above interpretation sought to be given on behalf of the Plaintiff. He submits that BCCI certainly can have more than one Disciplinary Committee in a year.

29. As set out in Rule 1(q) as well as Rule 32 of the BCCI Rules, the acts of indiscipline or misconduct on violation of any of the rules and regulations by any member or associate member, player, umpire, team officer, administrator, selector or any person appointed or employed by BCCI may be referred to the Disciplinary Committee constituted under Rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules. Therefore as pointed out by Mr. Dada there can be two, three, four or more delinquents in a year. If there are 3 delinquents in a particular year and if each have a valid objection qua each of the three members of the Disciplinary Committee BCCI would be required to have three different 34 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc committees to proceed against each of the delinquents and if that is not allowed to be done following the interpretation suggested by Mr. Jethmalani, that there cannot be more than one Disciplinary Committee of BCCI in a year, all the delinquents would go scot free thereby defeating the object of Rule 1(q) namely to enquire and deal with the matter relating to any act of indiscipline or misconduct or violation of any of the rules and regulations by a delinquent. In my view, the Courts whilst interpreting a rule should always lean towards a meaningful interpretation which would assist in achieving the object of the rule rather than destroying its object. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the Union of India and Others vs. Alok Kumar (supra) : “It would be appropriate to adopt an interpretation which would not take away the discretion contemplated under the Rule but would further the object.” In my view whilst interpreting Rule 1(q) of the BCCI Rules, it is necessary to take into account the doctrine of necessity the importance of which cannot be explained in better words than is done in Paragraph 16 of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Election Commission of India (Supra) as follows : “16. We must have a clear conception of the doctrine. It is well settled that law permits certain things to be done as a matter of necessity which it would otherwise not countenance on the touch stone of judicial propriety. Stated differently, the doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for the authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield. It is often invoked in cases of bias where there is no other authority or judge to decide the issue. If the doctrine of necessity is not allowed full play in 35 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the course of justice itself and the defaulting party would benefit thereform. Take the case of a certain taxing statute which taxes certain perquisites allowed to judges. If the validity of such a provision is challenged who but the members of the judiciary must decide it. If all the judges are disqualified on the plea that striking down of such a legislation would benefit them a stale mate situation may develop. In such cases the doctrine of necessity comes into play. If the choice is between allowing a biased person to act or to stifle the action altogether, the choice must fall in favour of the former as it is the only way to promote decision making. In the present case also if the two Election Commissioners are able to reach an unanimous decision there is no need for the Chief Election Commissioner to participate, if not the doctrine of necessity may have to be invoked.” Mr. Jethmalani has argued that the doctrine of necessity would not apply to the present case but would apply only where the element of public law is involved. As pointed by Mr. Dada, the Division Bench of this Court by its decision dated 15th September 2010 in Writ Petition No.1909 of 2010 filed by the Plaintiff inter alia against the BCCI, has after relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. V/s. Union of India &Anr. (2006) 2 SCC1, rejected the argument advanced on behalf of BCCI that the Writ Petition will not lie against BCCI within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and held that though the Board is not created by a statute and cannot be considered to be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution nevertheless, when a body has a public duty to perform the court may entertain Writ Petition under article 226 of the Constitution.

30. I am therefore of the view that under Rule 1(q) of the BCCI 36 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc Rules, more than one Disciplinary Committee can be formed by BCCI in a particular year to enquire into and deal with a matter relating to any act of indiscipline, misconduct or violation of any of the rules and regulations by the delinquents. It therefore cannot be held that the Agenda Notice dated 27th November, 2010 or the SGM held on 11th December, 2010 and the resolutions passed thereat are illegal and null and void as alleged by the Plaintiff.

31. In my view, the Plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case nor has he made out any case of an irreparable injury being caused to him if the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee constituted on 3rd July 2010 are continued. No prejudice will be caused to the Plaintiff if there are two disciplinary committees constituted by the BCCI and the proceedings pertaining to him are continuing before the same committee which was constituted on 3rd July 2010. As submitted on behalf of BCCI the Disciplinary Committee is something like a domestic tribunal and it will only be conducting an enquiry and submitting its findings. The ultimate decision making body is the Board and the decision has to be taken by 3/4th members present and voting at the Special General Body Meeting. From the aforesaid facts and more particularly the conduct set out by the Disciplinary Committee in its meeting held on 28th September 2010 reproduced in Paragraph 13 above I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is determined to delay the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee on one ground or the other. I am fortified in this view by the fact that the Plaintiff had earlier neither taken any objection qua the BCCI giving a shorter notice of 14 days for holding the SGM on 3rd July 2010 nor had he taken objection to the 37 NMS-230-S-L-195-11.doc constitution/reconstitution of the Disciplinary Committee on 3rd July 2010 by advancing the interpretation of Rule 1(q) as is now sought to be done qua the SGM held on 11th December 2010. If the Plaintiff is allowed to succeed in his endeavour of delaying the enquiry before the Disciplinary Committee, the entire purpose and object of the enquiry against him would be lost because as submitted on behalf of BCCI they have several witnesses who are foreign nationals and are coming from abroad to give their evidence in the matter and who may subsequently not be available to depose before the Disciplinary Committee. It is therefore essential that the Disciplinary Committee is allowed to complete its enquiry. The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. Needless to state that the findings and observations in this order are prima facie and made only for the purpose of deciding the present Notice of Motion and shall not influence the trial of the Suit. The Plaintiff shall also be at liberty to raise all issues which are the subject matter of this Suit at the time of challenging the final order of punishment if any, i.e. if the final order is adverse to the Plaintiff and is passed before the disposal of this Suit. Hearing of the Suit is expedited. Defendants to file their written statement on or before 29th April 2011. Place the Suit for framing of issues on 2nd May 2011. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]