India news September 25, 2013

Supreme Court to hear Modi appeal against BCCI SGM

India's Supreme Court is to hear on Wednesday afternoon a petition by Lalit Modi against the BCCI's special general meeting convened to discuss the disciplinary report on the former IPL chairman. The court is expected to hear the appeal at around the same time as the SGM is scheduled to convene.*

The Delhi High Court had, on Tuesday, dismissed Modi's appeal to issue a restraining order that would prevent the BCCI from holding the special general meeting (SGM) on September 25, when the board is expected to decide on a ban for Modi. A single-judge bench of VK Shali, after a two-day hearing, overruled the stay order imposed by the Patila House Court, where Modi had filed the application.

It is understood the BCCI will go ahead with the SGM, which will be chaired by the president N Srinivasan, in Chennai.

According to the BCCI's lawyer, CA Sundaram, the High Court concluded that the board's notice to Modi was issued correctly and the trial court should never have passed the stay order. "The judge said Mr Srinivsasn continues to be the president. He is vested with the powers of the president even if Mr Dalmiya may be doing the day-to-day activities. The notice was correctly issued and the trial court could not have given an ex parte injunction against a special general meeting. Such an order ought not have been passed at all by the trial court."

Earlier this month, the BCCI Disciplinary Committee had found Modi guilty on eight charges of "indiscipline and misconduct," and said that the final sanction would be decided during the SGM. On September 21, Modi approached the trial court where his legal counsels Swadeep Hora and Abhishek Singh argued before district judge Ruby Alka Gupta that the SGM notice, circulated by BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel on September 2, was illegal since Patel's appointment was not in accordance with the BCCI constitution. Since only the president of the BCCI can fill up a mid-term vacancy of a principal office-bearer, Patel's appointment by a working committee meeting with the president having stepped aside was illegal, they contended. The trial court then stayed the SGM. The BCCI had challenged the trial court's order by approaching the High Court on Monday.

SGMs, which strictly discuss a pre-fixed agenda, require a three-quarter mandate for a decision to be ratified. This effectively means that 24 votes would be enough to get Modi banned in a house of 31 votes, including 27 full members, National Cricket Club in Kolkata, Cricket Club of India in Mumbai, All-India Universities and the president's vote.

*0534 GMT, September 25. This news piece was updated with information about Lalit Modi's appeal to India's Supreme Court

Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • vas on September 25, 2013, 9:42 GMT

    There is a champions league going on, which is modi's brain chid. I have few queries, if someone has the answers please let us know.

    1) There are losing finalists and semifinalists are participating. Why is it called champions league?

    2) CLT20 is a property of BCCI. Why CSA and CA were given shares? Why other participating boards were not given shares?

    3) on what criteria bcci got 50% shares, CA 30% and CSA 20%? Is BCCI giving away free shares?

    4) why Bangladesh was not invited?

    5)why some countries have one team and other countries have more than one team. (England also had two teams).

    6)why T&T entered into main group while few others had to qualify?

  • Rob on September 25, 2013, 8:35 GMT

    Where is the cricket in all this?

  • Nanda Kumar on September 25, 2013, 8:16 GMT

    contd 1.... One may add that ever since the issue came up Mr Modi has left India and is currently in London and has been firing darts from there. No wonder Srini calls him a fugitive as he is required by the law enforcing authorities here... Mr Modi's current moves looks like one that seeks to buy time by knocking the doors for various courts in India... So we must look at the case based on facts and with a neutral eye. Modi is hardly an epitome of all the virtues that he claims and was seen as a dictator when he was running the IPL....

  • Nanda Kumar on September 25, 2013, 8:10 GMT

    @ Anthony Purcell... Not sure if you are from India. But let me clarify the chain of events. IPL committee under Lalit Modi were / are under the scanner for various deviations both from the rules of the BCCI and also by the Govt Of India.. In fact the tax authorities are following up with BCCI for various issues relating to the IPL held in SA. BCCI ( Yes Srini was the Board president) appointed a committee with three senior members in the commitee. The members include Mr Arun Jaitly who is one of the leading lawyers in india as well as the leader of the opposition in one of the houses of Parliament. The other member is Mr Scindia who is a minister in the current Govt. Mr Scindia himself was appointed only because Mr Modi had raised issues of neutrality on the earlier member. The committee after hearing all sides including Modi arrives at its decision and the same is to be taken up in the SGM. The principles of natural justice has been served... Contd...

  • Dummy4 on September 25, 2013, 6:28 GMT

    No one can say/do anything against the BCCI. It really doesn't matter in India or the cricket world whether they are right or wrong.

  • Dummy4 on September 25, 2013, 5:48 GMT

    BCCI wants to eliminate all opposition, every one who does not subscribe their method of managing the board. Remember what they did to rival Indian Championship League (ICL). With BCCI running the show, Cricket is not in safe hands.

  • Dummy4 on September 25, 2013, 2:21 GMT

    So Modhi accuses Srinivisan of misconduct, Srinivisan appoints a committee to investigate Modhi without looking into the original allegation. The committee, without any pretence of impartiality or independent review finds against Modhi, and in favour of the person who appointed them.

    A great day for justice!

  • suresh kumar on September 24, 2013, 15:01 GMT

    trial court should never have passed the order- sweet to hear and best part of this article

  • suresh kumar on September 24, 2013, 14:13 GMT

    In the name of ex players, column writers, commentators (articles) espncricinfo published articles that criticizes (criticism is soft word, they showed their grudge) through their article srinivisan only eventhough ipl headed by rajiv shukla. Espncricinfo did not publish even a single article of the writers, or interviews that supports srinivasan. I dont want espncricinfo to support srinivasan but i ask espncricinfo not to take stand against srinivasan by publishing one sided version. Even you publish sreesanth's version of defense but not srini's. Farokh engineer, ravi shasthri said some good things about srinivasan, you should have published those as a neutral observer but you didnot. I strongly feel you took a stand against srinivisan, i dont know why.

  • No featured comments at the moment.