Board of Control for Cricket, India and anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and ors. - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/639383
Subject Election ;Civil
Court Supreme Court of India
Decided On Jan-10-2005
Case Number Civil Appeal Nos. 237-239 of 2005 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. Constitution of India - Article 142; Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act
Appellant Board of Control for Cricket, India and anr.
Respondent Netaji Cricket Club and ors.
Advocates: A.M. Singhvi,; C.S. Vaidyanathan,; S.S. Ray,;
Cases Referred M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. and Ors.
Prior history From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.2004 of the Madras High 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 of 2004
civil - civil procedure code (cpc) - sections 107(2), 114 - order 47, rule 1- maharastra cricket association rules - rules 3, 5, 8, 20, 25, 26, 27, 32, 43(1) - review application - maintainability - a review application is maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence but also if same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason - a mistake on part of court including a mistake in the nature of undertaking may also call for review of the order - a subsequent event can be taken into consideration by court for purpose of rectifying its own mistake - suit for declaration and injunction filed by netaji cricket club, a member of board of control for cricket in india seeking declaration that eligible candidate entitled to contest.....s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted in all slps.2. these appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. the basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.4. netaji cricket club (netaji) is a member of tamil nadu cricket 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:'1. 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.....
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted in all SLPs.
2. These appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
4. Netaji Cricket Club (Netaji) is a member of Tamil Nadu Cricket 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:
'1. 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 such candidate not being a resident member within the zone not being a member of the said association giving him the representation.'
5. In the said suit, an apprehension was expressed that the Board in its ensuing election of office bearers would not permit some candidates to contest on the ground of residence.
6. 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 a prayer was made to the effect that the Annual General 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 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.
7. 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 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.
8. The Board aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 28.9.2004 preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. 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 furtherance of the said undertaking a statement was made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 'Netaji' that the apprehension of the plaintiff/ first respondent which formed 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;
(ii) the elections scheduled on 29.9.2004 at 10.30 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 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.'
9. It appears that another suit was filed in the Court of VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai by Bharathi Cricket Club against the Appellants herein as also the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association praying for the following reliefs:
'a) Declaration that the resolution in so far as it relates to Item 1 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 1(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 & 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 the Third Defendant as Patron-in-Chief thereby empowering the Third Defendant to attend the International Cricket Council and Asian Cricket Council Meetings representing the First Defendant.'
10. 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 herein from passing resolutions confirming the nomination of Shri Jagmohan Dalmia as Patron-in-chief for three years under Agenda No. 1(b).
11. A Civil Review Application marked as CRP No. 1734/2004 there against was filed before the Madras High Court which is said to have been heard in part and is still pending.
12. 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 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 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 alia 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 had been filed by the Appellants herein against the order of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge in OA No. 803 of 2004.
13. 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 therefore although no order of disqualification was served.