A.C. MUTHIAH versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANR.

A.C. MUTHIAH versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANR.

Dissenting opinion holds that past Presidents are Administrators under the BCCI Regulations and thus have locus standi to challenge amendments. The amendment to Clause 6.2.4 smacks of arbitrariness and bias, creates conflict of interest, and is fit to be suspended by injunction. Majority opinion (Panchal, J.) disagrees, but the matter is referred to a larger bench.

Parties
Appellant: A.C. Muthiah; First Respondent: Board of Control for Cricket in India; Second Respondent: N. Srinivasan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order; Decision Referred to Larger Bench Due to Difference of Opinion
Outcome
Difference of opinion; matter referred to larger bench
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Conflict of Interest, Injunction, Internal Management of Society, Interpretation of Regulations
Sports Law Company Law Civil Procedure Locus Standi Conflict of Interest Injunction Internal Management of Society Interpretation of Regulations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.C. Muthiah

Appellant

Board of Control for Cricket in India

First Respondent

N. Srinivasan

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order; Decision Referred to Larger Bench Due to Difference of Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, as past President of BCCI, has locus standi to challenge the amendment to BCCI regulations
  2. 2 Whether the amendment to Clause 6.2.4 is arbitrary, biased, and creates a conflict of interest
  3. 3 Whether an injunction should be granted to suspend the amendment to Clause 6.2.4

Ratio Decidendi

Dissenting opinion holds that past Presidents are Administrators under the BCCI Regulations and thus have locus standi to challenge amendments. The amendment to Clause 6.2.4 smacks of arbitrariness and bias, creates conflict of interest, and is fit to be suspended by injunction. Majority opinion (Panchal, J.) disagrees, but the matter is referred to a larger bench.

Court Disposition

Difference of opinion; matter referred to larger bench

Orders

  • Impugned amendment dated 27.9.2008 to Clause 6.2.4 of BCCI Regulations to be suspended by injunction if dissent adopted; Respondent No.2 to elect between BCCI office bearer position or owning IPL Chennai Super King