Sports Cricket 21 Jan 2016 Madras High Court di ...

Madras High Court dismisses CSK plea on two-year IPL ban

DECCAN CHRONICLE
Published Jan 21, 2016, 6:00 am IST
Updated Jan 21, 2016, 6:00 am IST
The bench said it was relevant to note that the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered on January 22, 2015.
Chennai Super Kings Logo
 Chennai Super Kings Logo

Chennai: The Madras high court dismissed Wednesday as not maintainable a petition filed by Chennai Super Kings (CSK), which challenged an order of the Justice R M Lodha Committee, suspending the team from the IPL league for two years.

“We make it clear that thus the petitioner has no independent status as a franchisee, who is only an assignee, and in the given situation was certainly not required to be heard separately nor did it seek any such hearing. The aspect of public interest cannot also be brought in to canvass the case to re-open the issue of recommendations of Justice Lodha Committee”, said a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam.

 

The bench said, “The petitioner being a fully owned subsidiary of the India Cements Ltd, it seems obvious to us that the grievance of lack of opportunity to present the case has been set up through the petitioner as an exercise to frustrate the consequences of the recommendations of Justice Lodha committee.

The petitioner must sink with the findings against the India Cements, and the punishment arising therefrom as franchisee”.

The bench said it was relevant to note that the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered on January 22, 2015. It was post this judgment that the Novation Agreement came to be executed on February 20, 2015 between the petitioner and the BCCI and Indian Cements Ltd for transfer of franchise in favour of the petitioner.

 

The petitioner was nowhere in the picture as on January 22, 2015. If it was not in the picture, where could the question be of it being an aggrieved party, which can seek redressal in appropriate judicial proceedings. Thus, this very premise that the petitioner can claim any independent right as an aggrieved party was clearly unsustainable, the bench added.

“If the role of the petitioner as assignee is taken into consideration, then it subsequent existence shows that it is only the India Cements which could have defended itself before Justice Lodha Committee and once that entity was so represented, the principles of fair hearing and audi alteram cannot be extended to a position where the assignee can insist that it must also be heard. It must sink or swim with the findings against the India Cements”, the bench added.

 

The bench said, “CSK was only a brand name, and if it is contended that public interest would suffer arising from the loss of opportunity to CSK in operation, all we can say is that whatever be the extent of the performance of the team, the public interest in cleaning up operation of the game would far outweigh any public interest of watching the team perform”.

...




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
-->