# • BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET, INDIA AND ANR v. NETAJI CRICKET CLUB AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2005] 1 S.C.R. 173
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2005
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 237-239 of 2005
- **Bench:** N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/board-of-control-for-cricket-india-and-anr-v-netaji-cricket-club-and-ors-20343
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

B
Societies-Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975-Appel!antBoard, 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. 1950Articles 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 valid

## Text

_Characters 0–39,992 of 89,935. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39992 for what follows._

•
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!antBoard, 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. 1950Articles 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, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Board is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu
H Societies Registration Act. It enjoys a monopoly status as regard regulation
I.\
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET,"· NETAJI CRICKET CLUB
J 75
of the sport of cricket in terms of its Memorandum of Association and A
) ·~
Articles of Association. It controls the sport of cricket and lays down the
law therefor. It inter a/ia enjoys benefits by way of tax exemption and right
to use stadia at nominal annual rent. It earns a huge revenue not only by
selling tickets to the viewers but also selling right to exhibit films live on
TV and broadcasting the same. Ordinarily, its full members are the State B
Associations except, Association of Indian Universities, Railway Sports
Control Board and Services Sports Control Board. As a member of ICC,
it represents the country in the international fora. It exercises enormous
public functions. It has the authority to select players, umpires and officials
to represent the country in the international fora. It exercises total control
over the players, umpires and other officers. The Rules of the Board clearly C
demonst_rate that without its recognition no competitive cricket can be
hosted either within or outside the country. Its control over the sport of
competitive cricket is deeply pervasive and complete. (198-E-H; 199-A)
1.2. In law, there cannot be any dispute that having regard to the
enormity of power exercised by it, the Board is bound to follow the D
doctrine of 'fairness' and 'good faith' in all its activities. Having regard
to the fact that it has to fulfil the hopes and aspirations of millions, it has
'"
a duty to act reasonably. It cannot act arbitrarily, whimsically or
•
capriciously. As the Board controls the profession of cricketers, its actions
are required to be judged and viewed by higher standards. (199-B)
E
1.3. An association or a club which has framed its rules are bound
thereby. The strict implementation of such rules is imperative. Necessarily,
the office bearers in terms of the Memorandum and Articles of Association
must not only act within the four corners thereof but exercise their
respective powers in an honest and fair manner, keeping in view the public p
good as also the welfare of the sport of cricket. It is, therefore, wholly
undesirable that a body incharge of controlling the sport of cricket should
involve in litigations completely losing sight of the objectives of the society.
It is furthermore unfortunate that a room for suspicion has been created ..
that all its dealings are not fair. The Board has been accused of shady
dealings and double standards. The conduct of the Board is not above G
board. The manner in which the Board had acted leaves much to desire.
) 199-C-D; 204-C)
T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363, SC Belgaum, (1963) SC 1144:
(1964) I SCR I; Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors., (1997) 8 H
/
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] I S.C.R.
A SCC 715; Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society v. Registrar of Societies
and Ors., (2000( I SCC 566; K. Murugan v. Fencing Association of India,
~ •
B
Jabalpur and Ors., (1991 ( 2 SCC 412 and St. Johnstone Football Club Limited
v. Scottish Football Association, (1965) SLT 171, referred to.
Nagle v. Feilden and Ors., (1966) 2 QB 633, referred to.
2.1. Indisputably, an undertaking had been given by the Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Board. In the impugned order, the Division
Bench before whom such undertaking had been given was of the opinion
that it was misled. This Court having regard to the understanding of such
C undertaking by the Division Bench does not intend to deal with the effect
and purport thereof and as the Division Bench of the High Court itself is
competent therefor. (200-G-H)
2.2. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining
a review application cannot be said to be ex facie bad in law. Section 114
D CPC empowers a court to review its order if the conditions precedents
laid down therein are satisfied. The substantive provision of law does not
prescribe any limitation on the power of the court except those which are
expressly provided in Section 114 CPC in terms whereof it is empowered
to make such order as it thinks fit. (201-B)
E
2.3. Order 47, Rule I of the CPC provides for filing an application
for review. Such an 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.
Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake
F in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order.
An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists
sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would
depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient
reason' in Order 47, Rule I of the CPC is wide enough to include a
G misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate. An
application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine
"actus curiae neminem gravabit". (201-C-EJ
2.4. It is also not correct to contend that the Court while exercising
its review jurisdiction in any situation whatsoever cannot take into
H consideration a subsequent event. In a case of this nature when the Court
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET, v. NET All CRICKET CLUB
J 77
accepts its own mistake in understanding the nature and purport of the A
I....,
undertaking given by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Board and
its correlation with as to what transpired in the AGM of the Board held
on 29th September, 2004, the subsequent event may be taken into
consideration by the Court for the purpose of rectifying its own mistake.
[202-GI B
2.5. Furthermore, the impugned order is interlocutory in nature. This
Court, it is trite, ordinarily would not interfere with an interlocutory order
admitting a review petition. The order is not wholly without jurisdiction
so as to warrant interference of this Court at this stage. The Division Bench
of the High Court had jurisdiction to admit the review application and C
examine the contention as to whether it can have a re-look over the matter.
[204-A-Bl
lily Thomas and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [2000) 6 SCC 224
and Rajesh D. Darbar and Ors. v. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni and Ors.,
[2003) 1 sec 219, relied on.
D
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius and Ors., (19551 1 SCR 520, referred to.
3. Earlier, this Court had after hearing the parties observed that if
a situation arises this Court would go into the validity of the election of E
the office bearers of the Board, but, this was done under a mistaken belief
that the Board would be represented by the new office bearers and, thus,
all parties would be before it. However, it now stands admitted that the
office bearers either in their personal capacity or official capacity are not
before this Court. They may have notice of the pendency of this
proceeding. They may be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings F
of this Court. But, unless they are made parties in these proceedings, this
Court would not be in a position to entertain the dispute as regard validity
of the meeting resulting in the election of the office bearers. Giving an
opportunity of hearing to the elected members in a dispute of this nature
is imperative and not a matter of mere procedure, formality or G
technicality. The election dispute, therefore, must be adjudicated upon by
a proper forum. [199-F-H; 200-A)
4.1. The question as to whether the Maharashtra Cricket Association
has unjustly been deprived of its right to participate in the AGM through
Mr. Agashe whereas DDCA and the Rajasthan Cricket Association had H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] I S.C.R.
A been allowed to participate therein is a question which would require
deeper probe and a detailed scrutiny. A person may either be entitled to
represent an association or he is not. A person's right to rt'present an
association ordinarily would not vary with the nature of the meeting unless
otherwise provided in the statute. 1204-D, GI
B
4.2. Different standards cannot be adopted by the Board, viz., one
for the purpose of requisitioned meeting for inviting Mr. Dalmia to become
the patron-in-chief of the Board and other for the purpose of attending
an AGM. In other meetings, Maharashtra Cricket Association had
admittedly been represented by Mr. Agashe. It is also doubtful as to
C whether the Board could have gone into, if at all, the validity or otherwise
of the meeting of the Maharashtra Cricket Association. 1205-A-BI
4.3. Whether sending a representative of the Maharashtra Cricket
Association is a matter of policy warranting interference by the observers
appointed by the Bombay High Court is again a contentious issue. The
D members of the Association could not have undermined the importance
of electing its representative for the ensuing Annual General Meeting of
the Board. 1205-DI
4.4. The Maharashtra Cricket Association itself has filed a Special
Leave Petition questioning the order of the Division Bench of the High
E Court. In a situation of this nature, this Court may not exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India because the
order impugned before it is not correct. The jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution is a discretionary one. [205-E-Fl
F
4.5. However, keeping in view of the fact that the elected office
bearers are yet to take over charge, with a view to do complete justice to
the parties, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
it is directed that the adjourned meeting should immediately be convened.
As regard the election of the office bearers of the Board, it would further
be open to an aggrieved party to question the legality or validity of the
G said meeting. Respondent No.I also may, if it is otherwise permissible in
law, subject to an appropriate order that may be passed by the High
Court, may file an application for amendment of the plaint or take such
other step or steps as it may be advised. Keeping in view the fact that when
the impugned order was passed the new Board had not taken over as also
having regard to the prayer made in the interim application filed by
H Respondent No.I for grant of interim injunction restraining the newly
1
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET,"· NETAJI CRICKET CLUB
J 79
elected Board from functioning in the interim, the interim order earlier A
passed by this Court staying the operation of the part of the order whereby
Mr. Justice S. Mohan was appointed as an interim Administrator absolute
leaving the parties to file such interim applications as may be necessary
in the changed situation. 1207-F-H; 208-A]
4.6. However, in view of the fact that interim order of injunction as B
regard Agenda Item Nos. l(b) and 13 had been passed by a District Court
at Chennai, the suit filed by Bharathi Cricket Cl,,b, :tis not necessary to
pass any other order at this stage as regard invitation to Mr. Jagmohan
Dalmia to become the patron-in-chief of the Board. Also it would not be
appropriate to restore the order of the Single Judge as the purpose for C
which Mr. Justice S. Mohan was appointed has lost its efficacy.
1208-B-C]
4. 7. It is also not necessary to pass separate orders in the Special
Leave Petition filed by the Maharashtra Cricket Association. Th~
Maharashtra Cricket Association shall, however, be at liberty to file an D
appropriate application for getting itself impleaded in the proceedings
pending before the High Court, subject to any objection that may be taken
by the Board. Furthermore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances
of this case that part of the order of the Division Bench whereby and
whereunder the Board was directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh to
Mr. Justice S. Mohan as additional remuneration cannot be sustained. It E
is set aside accordingly. 1208-D-E]
4.8. Keeping in view the peculiar fact situation obtaining herein, the
High Court is requested to consider the desirability of disposing of the
matters pending before it as expeditiously as possible. 1208-FI
F
Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Anr. v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and
Ors., 1198213 SCC 331; Taherakhatoon (D) by LRs. v. Salambin Mohammad,
11999] 2 SCC 635; Chandra Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.,
(2003) 6 SCC 545; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors., 12003] 8
SCC 319; Rajesh D. Darbar amd Ors. v. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni and
Ors., JT (2003) 7 SC 209 and MP. Special Police Establishment v. State of G
MP. and Ors., 12004] 8 SCC 788, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 237-239 of
2005.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.2004 of the Madras High H
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] I S.C.R.
A Court in C.M.P. Nos. 16418 and 16419/2004, R.P. No. 166/2004 in O.S.A.
No. 225/2004 and C.M.P. No. 16420/2004 in S.R. No. 103036 of2004.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 249, 232-33, 234-236 of 2005.
B
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, C.S. Vaidyanathan, S.S. Ray, F.S. Nariman, Harish
N. Salve, Shanti Bhushan and K. Ramamoorthy, Ms. Radha Rangaswamu,
U.N. Banerjee, Jaideep Kar, Siddhartha Chowdhury, Ms. Bharthi Tyagi, Gopal
Jain, Ankur Chawla, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Meenakshi
Grover, Subhash Sharma, Ashish Jha, Gaurav Vatts, Bharat Sinuri, Mrs. Manik
Karanjawala, E.C. Agrawala, Sushi! Kumar Jain, Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Shilpa
C Chohan, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik Ms. Sushmita Banerjee, Ms. Minakshi Sharma,
Tarun Johri and Harishanker K., for the appearing parties.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered-by
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted in all SLPs.
These appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken
up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
Netaji Cricket Club (Netaji) is a member of Tamil Nadu Cricket
E Association. Tamil Nadu Cricket Association is admittedly a member of the
Board of Control for Cricket in India (Board). Netaji filed a suit for declaration
and injunction in the Madras High Court which was marked as Civil Suit No.
765 of 2004 inter alia for the following reliefs:
F
G
H
"I. A declaration to declare that the eligible candidates who are entitled
to contest for the post of President in the BCCI proposed a member
of the North Zone should be permitted to contest in the election
process and also be entitled to be elected as the President and act as
such for the term in the election to be conducted in the Annual
General Meeting on 29th and 30th of September, 2004 at Hotel Taj
Bengal, Kolkata.
2. For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents,
servants and men from in any manner seeking to disqualify any eligible
person or persons proposed by any member of the North Zone, as
representative from the said zone representing a member in the North
zone as their candidate for the Presidential Post of BCCI by virtue of
r
r ...
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET, 1• NETAJI CRICKET CLUB [SINHA, J.]
181
such candidate not being a resident member within the zone not A
being a member of the said association giving him the representation."
In the said suit, an app1·ehension was expressed that the Board in its
ensuing election of office bearers would not/permit some candidates to contest
on the ground of residence.
In the said suit, two interim applications bearing No. OA No. 803 of
2004 and OA No. 804 of 2004 were filed. Whereas in OA No. 803 of 2004
B
a prayer was made to the effect that the Annual Genera! Meeting (AGM) be
conducted under the Chairmanship of a retired Supreme Court Judge with
absolute power to scrutinize and approve the list of authorized representatives
from member associations eligible to vote in the AGM; in OA No. 804 of C
2004 a prayer for injunction was made for restraining the Appellants herein
from interfering with the proposal of any representative of any member of
the North Zone for the post of President on the basis of residential qualification.
By an interim order dated 28.9.2004, a learned Single Judge of the said
High Court appointed Shri S. Mohan, a former Judge of this Court as a D
Commissioner to conduct elections and to take necessary decision with regard
to qualification, nomination and· conduct of elections. The third respondent,
was further prohibited from disqualifying any member of BCCI and prevent
them from voting.
The Board aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated E
28.9.2004 preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the
Madras High Comi. Before the said Division Bench, an undertaking was
given by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Board that the Board
would not disqualify any candidate for the post of President on the ground
of residence. Pursuant to or in furtt.erance of the said undertaking a statement p
was made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 'Netaji' that the
apprehension of the plaintiff/ first respondent which fonned the basis for
moving the Court by filing a suit for the relief as stated above is vanished
in air. With the consent of the parties, the suit itself was withdrawn and both
the appeal and the suit were disposed of in the following terms:
"(i) We are of the view that the impugned order need not be in
existence and hence, the same is set aside;
.. G
(ii) the elections scheduled on 29.9.2004 at I 0.30 a.m. shall be
continued by the first defendant/ appellant Body strictly in accordance
with the provisions of their Constitution and the rules or bye-laws H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] I S.C.R.
framed thereunder;
(iii) the counsel on record for the first defendant/ appellant herein
made an endorsement to the effect that "the appellant shall ·not
disqualify any candidate for the post of President on the ground of
residence". The said undertaking has been given by the learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. T.R. Rajagopal across the bar and the same is recorded
and we direct that the undertaking should be given effect to in letter
and spirit without any deviation;
(iv) the first defendant/ appellant herein is hereby directed to receive
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. (sic) Mohan, who was appointed as
Commissioner under the order on appeal and offer due respect ,and all
comforts during his stay at Kolkata without giving any room for the
learned Judge to feel embarrassed and the learned Judge should be
treated with high dignity. The first defendant/appellant herein shall
pay a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) as final
remuneration to Hon 'ble Mr. Justice S. Mohan, apart from other
incidental expenses; and
(v) in default of conditions (ii) and (iii), referred to above, if any
party who is a member of the first defendant/appellant - Board is
aggrieved, he is at liberty to workout his relief in appropriate
proceedings before the competent court."
It appears that another suit was filed in the Court of Vil Assistant City
Civil Court, Chennai by Bharathi Cricket Club against the Appellants herein
as also the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association praying for the following relie"s:
"(a) Declaration that the resolution in so far as it relates to Item I
passed at the Special General Meeting of the First Defendant held on
12.9.2004 at 11.30 a.m. at the Taj Coromandel, Nungambakkam High
Road, Chennai, electing the Third Defendant as the Patron in Chief
as null and void.
(b) Order of Permanent Injunction restraining the First Defendant
from passing the resolution in relation to Item l(b) and Item No. 13
of the Agenda of the Notice dated 27 .08.2004 issued by the First
Defendant for convening the Annual General Meeting on 29th and
30th September, 2004 at Hotel Taj Bengal or at any other place,
consequently restraining the First Defendant from passing any ·
resolution in any manner whatsoever having the effect of nominating
..
-~
"
>
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET, v. NETAJI CRICKET CLUB [SINHA, l]
J 83
,I--<...,,
the Third Defendant as Patron-in-Chief thereby empowering the Third A
Defendant to attend the International Cricket Council and Asian Cricket
Council Meetings representing the First Defendant."
In the said suit, a prayer was made by the. plaintiff thereof for grant of
an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, whereupon the Court by an order dated
28.9.2004 granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellants B
herein from passing resolutions confir~ing the nomination of Shri Jagmohan
Dalmia as Patron-in-chief for three years under Agenda No. l(b).
A Civil Review Application marked as CRP No. 1734/2004 thereagainst
was filed before the Madras High Court which is said to have been heard in c
part and is still pending.
The Annual General Meeting was convened on 29.9.2004. In the said
meeting although no person was prevented from contesting the election for
the post of President of the Board on the ground of residence but it stands
admitted that Maharashtra Cricket Association was not permitted to take part D
in the election through Mr. D.C. Agashe or any other person. We shall deal
with the said matter separately hereinafter. It further stands admitted that Shri
~
Jagmohan Dalmia, who chaired the meeting, had cast one vote as a result
whereof equal number of votes i.e. 15 each were polled on both sides
whereupon he gave his casting vote. The AGM, however, on 30.9.2004 was
adjourned till 26.10.2004. The Board herein filed a Special Leave Petition on E
limited grounds against the said order of the Division Bench dated 29.9.2004.
However, after the AGM was held, a review petition was filed by 'Netaji'
marked as Review Petition No. 166 of 2004 inter a/ia contending that the
purported undertaking given by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Appellant herein was not adhered to and furthermore no appeal F
had been filed by the Appellants herein against the order of injunction passed
)
by the learned Single Judge in OA No. 803 of 2004.
A review petition was also filed by Mr. D.C. Agashe seeking review of
the said order dated 29.9.2004 contending that he had not been allowed to
participate in the said election having been disqualified therefor although no G
order of disqualification was served.
The said review application was admitted by the said Division Bench
of the High Court on 8.10.2004 observing that the undertaking across the bar
given by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Board had not
been given effect to in its letter and spirit. On an application made in this H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2005) I S.C.R.
A behalf by 'Netaji', an interim order also came to be passed. The High Court
opined:
"3. We feel that we had been misled by the undertaking made on
. behalf of the first respondent herein, namely the appellant in the
O.S.A. No. 225 of 2004 (first defendant in the suit O.S. No. 765 of
B
2004), which culminated into the passing of the judgment dated
29.9.2004 made in O.S.A. No. 225 of2004 and C.S. No.765 of2004,
which is sought to be reviewed in the review application No. 166 of
2004.
c
D
E
F
G
4. We are of the considered opinion that the undertaking offered on
behalf of the first respondent/Board not to disqualify any member
from any of the zone, across the bar, has not been given effect to in
letter and spirit as directed in our judgment dated 29.9.2004 made in
O.S.A. No. 225 of 2004 and C.S. No. 765 of 2004 and prima facie
there are reasons to believe as to the alleged breach of the said
undertaking and hence, we are sati~fied that a prima facie case has
been made out for granting injunction and, therefore, there shall be
an order of interim injunction as prayed for until further orders in
C.M.P. No. 16419 of 2004. Notice.
5. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, which led
to the filing of the O.S.A. No. 225 of 2004 and the admitted fact that
the first respondent in the review application had not preferred any
appeal against the order made in Application No. 803 of 2004
whereunder Hon 'ble Mr. Justice S. Mohan; Judge, Supreme Court
(Retired) was appointed as a Commissioner, and that the meeting
held on 29-30.9.2004 stands adjourned as on date, we are inclined to
appoint Hon'ble MR. Justice S. Mohan, Judge, Supreme Court
(Retired) as an interim administrator until further orders, of course,
subject to His Lordship's consent for the same, which shall be obtained
through the Registry. In such event, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Mohan,
Judge, Supreme Court (Retired) shall be paid a remuneration of Rs.
1,00,000/- per month apart from other administrative, travelling and
incidental expenses, by the first respondent/ Board. Notice."
The SLP (C) Nos. 21820-22/2004 have been preferred by the Appellants
herein questioning the said order dated 8.10.2004. In the Special Leave Petition
filed by the Board, the Delhi and District Cricket Association has joined
H wherefor an application for permission to file the same has been prayed for.
I
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET,''· NET All CRICKET CLUB [SINHA, J.) 185
I -<.
This Court passed the following order on I I. I 0.2004:
A
"List this matter for final hearing on 26th October, 2004. In the
meantime the impugned order to the extent of appointment of
Administrator is stayed. In the meantime Election/ appointment of
Respondent No. 3 Patron-in-Chief is also stayed until further orders.
B
Correction and rectification if any be completed by them."
Submissions have been advanced by Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior
counsel, on behalf of Appellant No. I, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior
counsel on behalf of Appellant No. 2 and Mr. S.S. Ray, learned senior counsel,
'
on behalf of Shri Jagmohan Dalmia, whereas Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned c
'
senior counsel appeared on behalf of Maharashtra Cricket Association and
Mr. Agashe and Mr. Harish N. Salve, on behalf of 'Netaji'. An intervention
application was filed by 'Club of Maharashtra', represented by Mr. Shanti
Bhushan, learned senior counsel. Intervention applications were also filed by
The Karnataka State Cricket Association, Rajasthan Cricket Association and D
Saurashtra Cricket Association.
,,.
Contention of Dr. Singh vi appearing on behalf of the Appellant was
that the suit was filed by 'Netaji' only on an apprehension that a representative
y
or a member club would be debarred from contesting the election to the post
of President on the ground of residence and, no contention had been raised E
as regard the right of an association to vote in the said meeting.
Dr. Singhvi would submit that there had been similar instances in the
past where the Chairman of the meeting had cast two votes one in terms of
Rule 25 and another in terms of Rule 26. The learned counsel would urge
that as the rules of the Board constitute contract between the members, only F
the 'doctrine of fairness' shall apply in the conduct and affairs of the Club,
)
and, thus, even minor deviations are permissible in law. Reliance in this
behalf has been placed on T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363, S.C. Belgaum,
(1963) SC 1144 : [1964] 1 SCR I.
It was urged that the High Court wrongly exercised its jurisdiction in G
entertaining the review application. Reliance in this regard has been placed
on Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors., (1997] 8 SCC 715 and
"'
lily Thomas and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2000] 6 SCC 224.
~
The learned counsel would argue that the undertaking given by the
H
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant before the Division
186
SUPREME CO.URT REPORTS
[2005J I S.C.R.
A Bench of the Madras High Court was in consonance of the contention raised
in the Memo of Appeal itself which had been duly recorded and the said
undertaking having not been violated, the application for review was not
maintainable. Taking us through the Memo of Appeal in OSA No. 225 of
2004, the learned counsel would contend that on a perusal thereof it would
B be evident that an appeal was preferred against the order dated 28.9.2004
passed by the learned Single Judge passed both in OA No. 803 of 2004 and
OA No. 804 of 2004. It was contended that Netaji had no locus to file a suit
or pray for an order of injunction as it was not a member of the Board. In
the Annual General Meeting, Dr. Singhvi would submit, no person contesting
for the post of President having been disqualified on the ground of residence,
C the review petition was not maintainable wherein, a shift was made to the
right of voting vis-a-vis the right to contest for the post of President which
was not the basis for filing of the suit. Such a change in the stand on the part
of 'Netaji', Dr. Singhvi would urge, is impermissible in law. In any event, the
learned counsel would contend, that the same might give rise to an independent
cause of action and, thus, keeping in view the scope and purport of the suit
D the review application should not have been entertained. It was further pointed
out that in the said suit Mr. Agashe being not a party, the contention that he
was not allowed to represent the Maharashtra Cricket Association could not
be taken to be a ground for entertaining a review application. A breach of an
undertaking in any view of the matter, according to Dr. Singhvi, cannot give
E rise to a revival of suit particularly when, how and in what manner the
violation of such undertaking had taken place had not been specified. The
interim order, according to Dr. Singh vi, goes far beyond the scope of the suit.
As regards the legality of the said meeting dated 29.9.2004, the learned
counsel had taken us through the orders passed in the litigations concerning
F the Maharashtra Cricket Association and submitted that in view of the order
of the Bombay High Court dated 1.3.2004 and furthermore having regard the
objections raised by Mr. Thorve, Mr. Agashe could not have been permitted
to take part in the said meeting as a representative of Maharashtra Cricket
Association.
G
As regards the contention that Mr. Agashe was pennitted to represent
the said Association on 12.9.2004 despite the protest by Mr. Thorve in terms
of his letter dated 10.4.2004, the learned counsel would submit, it was so
done in terms of the legal opinion obtained in that behalf and in any event
the same was an EGM and not AGM. It was contended that the said EGM
H was convened having regard to the requisitions made by 27 out of 30 members
~··
y
'
I-..,
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET,"· NETAJI CRICKET CLUB [SINHA, J] 187
to invite Mr. Dalmia to become the patron-in-chief of the Board and, thus, A
the result thereof was a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, from the minutes
of the meeting held on 12.9.2004, it would appear that the same was a
requisitioned meeting and not an AGM. On the other hand, in terms of order
dated 21.9.2004 passed by the Bombay High Court both the observers
appointed by it were entitled to attend the meeting and further a direction was B
issued to the effect that the Managing Committee of the Association shall not
take any major policy decision, save and except with the consent of the two
observers.
Drawing our attention to the notice dated 25.9.2004 issued by the
Maharashtra Cricket Association as regard the proposed meeting to appoint C
the representatives of the Maharashtra Cricket Association in the forthcoming
Annual General Meeting of the Board, scheduled on 29th and 30th September,
2004 at Kolkata; it was urged that the same was illegal.
The learned counsel would contend that representatil'n of the
Maharashtra Cricket Association in the Annual General Meeting which is an D
annual affair was a matter involving major policy decision which could be
taken only in a duly constituted meeting. The said notice dated 25.9.2004
.·>
was illegal as it was not issued in terms of Rule 32 of the Rules of the
~
Maharashtra Cricket Association which postulates four clear days' notice
before convening an ordinary meting and in relation to urgent matters, the
Rule postulates one clear day's notice which had not been done in the instant E
case as had also been pointed by Mr. Deshmukh in his letter dated 27.9.2004.
It was contended that Mr. Agashe and Mr. Thorve filed suits in the
Pune Civil Court. Mr. Agashe furthermore filed an application for grant of
ad-interim injunction directing the Maharashtra Cricket Association to allow F
it to be represented through him which was not granted. In the aforementioned
premise, upon obtaining legal opinion and upon hearing the contending and
contesting parties, a decision was taken by the Board that neither Mr. Agashe
nor Mr. Thorve can represent the Maharashtra Cricket Association.
On the aforementioned premise, it was submitted that there was a G
fundamental difference between the meeting held on 12.9.2004 and 29.9.2004
particularly in view of the fact that the Board had before it the letter of Mr.
Deshmukh, suits were filed and furthermore there was a possibility of the
members of the Board facing a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act
for violating orders of the Bombay High Court. It was argued that in any
event, the decision being not an arbitrary one, the same could not have been H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005) I S.C.R.
A questioned in the review application.
As regards, the representation of DDCA, it was contended that no
question was raised by any person whatsoever in the meeting to represent it
before the Board and in fact in the Annual General Meeting the said
representative of DDCA indeed was elected as an election officer. It was
B pointed out that even in the review application, the said question was not
raised.
As regards, invitation of Mr. Dalmia for holding the post of patron-inchief, our attention was drawn to Rule 8 of the Articles of Association and
C it was submitted that by reason thereof merely his contribution to the field
of cricket was recognized. The said post, according to Dr. Singhvi, is an
ornamental post who has no power or official authority in the management
of the Board.
Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
D the DDCA would submit that as regards legality or otherwise of its participation
neither any objection was taken in the plaint nor in the review petition nor
any document was filed and in that view of the matter the Respondents
cannot be permitted to raise a contention for the first time in this Court.
Drawing our attention to the order dated 18.9.2004 passed by the
E Company Law Board, the learned counsel would contend that by reason of
the said order, DDCA was merely directed to maintain the status quo, i.e.,
restrained to holding the AGM.
Mr. S.S. Ray, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.
Jagmohan Dalmia would adopt the submissions made by Dr. Singhvi and
F would submit that as the Articles of Association of the Board constitute a
contract amongst the members, they are bound thereby unless the same are
found to "be illegal, malafide and contrary to the statute. Reliance in this
behalf has been placed on Hyderabad Karna/aka Education Society v.
Registrar of Societies and Ors., [2000) I SCC 566.
G
The learned counsel would contend that having regard to the sequence
of events borne out from records and having regard to the various litigations
pending before different courts and in particular the directions issued by the
Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1465 of 2004 and writ petition No.
1559 of 2004 nobody chairing a meeting as important as Annual General
H Meeting of the Board could have allowed Mr.