A Delhi court on Saturday restrained the BCCI from holding its special general meeting on Wednesday to consider the report of the disciplinary committee on former IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi for alleged financial irregularities in the running of the cricket league.
The ex-parte order was passed on the plea of Modi challenging Sanjay Patel’s authority as BCCI secretary in issuing the September 2 notice to him for considering the report of the three-member disciplinary committee comprising Arun Jaitley, Chirayu Amin and Jyotiraditya Scindia on September 25.
“The plaintiff (Modi) has prima facie shown the notice of the SGM has been issued without appropriate authority. He has also shown that he shall suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money by the report of the disciplinary committee being considered in an unauthorised meeting. The balance of convenience thus lies in the favour of the plaintiff (Modi). The defendants (BCCI, its office-bearers and members of disciplinary committee) are thus hereby restrained from holding the SGM scheduled for September 25,” additional district judge Ruby Alka Gupta said.
The court granted four days to BCCI, Patel, Jagmohan Dalmiya, who is functioning as the interim chief of the cricket board in place of N. Srinivasan to file a response on Modi’s plea and posted the matter for September 30.
Modi’s counsel contended the September 2 notice issued to him was without authority as Patel was not authorised and it was issued on the instructions of Srinivasan, who in the wake of IPL spot-fixing scam in which his son-in-law is an accused, has chosen not to perform the function of the president of BCCI.
“The said notice is thus stated to be illegal and contrary to the rules and regulations of BCCI,” the application said.
While allowing only the plea for staying the SGM, the court did not go into the other issues raised by Modi. “As regards the other prayers in the application, there is no immediate injury liable to be suffered by the plaintiff (Modi). No ex-parte orders are called for in this regard,” the judge said, adding that nothing in the order shall be tantamount to an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.