|
Pitched By Cricket360 Observer
|
|
Thursday, 05 February 2009 |
|
A suit was filed by former BCCI president A V Muthiah seeking the setting aside of an amendment made to the BCCI regulations which permitted the exclusion of IPL and T20 Champions League from the purview of clause 6.2.4. BCCI has defended its actions by clarifying in its reply to the suit of the plaintiff that the provision of clause 6.2.4 was created to put in place a mechanism which would prevent match fixing at a time when the game was suffering from repeated allegations.
It would seem that the Board for Cricket Control in India is never very far from the cricket news headlines , and not always for the right reasons. What is once again making cricket news is the suit filed by former president of the BCCI, A V Muthiah against BCCI and Cricket Board Secretary N Srinivasan seeking a restraining injunction among other reliefs, reports Cricket360.com.
The suit was filed by Muthiah seeking the setting aside of an amendment made to the BCCI regulations which permitted the exclusion of IPL and T20 Champions League from the purview of clause 6.2.4.
Clause 6.2.4 stipulates that "no administrator shall have direct or indirect commercial interests in the matches or events conducted by the Board". It is this exclusion of the IPL and T20 Champions League from the purview of this provision; i.e. clause 6.2.4 that is being challenged by Muthiah in his suit.
Muthiah has also sought an injunction restraining Srinivasan from functioning as Board Secretary and President of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association for acquiring the franchise of Chennai Super Kings by India Cements Ltd of which he was Managing Director. The Board at its Annual General Meeting on September 27 2008 had amended the clause, carving out the said exception reports Cricket360 .
BCCI has defended its actions by clarifying in its reply to the suit of the plaintiff that the provision of clause 6.2.4 was created to put in place a mechanism which would prevent match fixing at a time when the game was suffering from repeated allegations. BCCI has alleged that the Plaintiff Muthiah appears bent on maligning and discrediting Srinivasan and was in the attempt tarnishing the image and the reputation of the BCCI.
BCCI has in an affidavit filed by deponent Ratnakar Shetty the Chief Administrative officer of the BCCI, claimed that the amendment was passed unanimously at the AGM and that it was a totally false allegation that Srinivasan prevailed upon other officer bearers of the board to introduce the amendment.
The plaintiff has also claimed in his suit that the impugned amendment was illegal and opposed to public policy and an abuse of power. To this the BCCI has countered that the "expression of the democratic will of the members cannot amount to mala fide abuse of power nor can the applicant be allowed to set the standards of public policy".
Newer news items:
Older news items:
|
