2011 (4) TMI 1488 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of the Appellant.
2. Validity of the Amendment to Clause 6.2.4 of BCCI Regulations.
3. Conflict of Interest.
4. Maintainability of the Suits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Locus Standi of the Appellant:
The court examined whether the Appellant, a past president of BCCI, had the locus standi to file the suit. The definition of "Administrator" in Clause 1(n) of the BCCI Regulations includes past and present Presidents, Vice Presidents, Honorary Secretaries, and Treasurers. The court found that the Appellant, as a past president, is indeed an Administrator within the meaning of Clause 1(n). Therefore, the Appellant had the necessary locus standi to challenge the amendment to Clause 6.2.4 of the BCCI Regulations.

2. Validity of the Amendment to Clause 6.2.4 of BCCI Regulations:
The court scrutinized the amendment process of Clause 6.2.4, which excluded IPL, Champions League, and Twenty20 matches from the prohibition against administrators having commercial interests. The Appellant argued that the amendment was introduced to benefit Respondent No. 2, who had a commercial interest in the IPL team Chennai Super Kings. The court noted that the amendment was passed unanimously by the General Body of BCCI, following the proper procedure. Therefore, the amendment was found to be valid and not contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.

3. Conflict of Interest:
The Appellant contended that Respondent No. 2, as an office bearer of BCCI and Vice Chairman and Managing Director of India Cements Ltd., which owned Chennai Super Kings, had a direct conflict of interest. The court examined the concept of conflict of interest and concluded that the participation of Respondent No. 2 in the IPL auction, while holding an office in BCCI, created a situation of potential conflict of interest. However, the court also noted that the amendment to Clause 6.2.4 was made to address the commercial nature of IPL and Champions League, which were not covered by the original regulations. The court found that there was no evidence of actual financial loss to BCCI due to the alleged conflict of interest.

4. Maintainability of the Suits:
The court analyzed whether the suits filed by the Appellant were maintainable. The Appellant argued that the suits were filed in his capacity as an Administrator of BCCI. The court held that the Appellant, being a past president and thus an Administrator, had the right to file the suits. The court also considered whether the suits were representative actions under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure or public interest suits under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court concluded that the suits were maintainable as they were filed by the Appellant in his individual capacity as an Administrator.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the amendment to Clause 6.2.4 and rejecting the claim of conflict of interest. The court found that the Appellant had the locus standi to file the suits, but the amendment was validly passed, and there was no evidence of actual financial loss to BCCI due to the alleged conflict of interest. The suits were deemed maintainable, but the interim relief sought by the Appellant was denied.