Bombay high court refuses to stay its order on BCCI's committee against Lalit Modi

The Bombay high court today refused to stay its single bench order which had stalled till January 10 the proceedings of the disciplinary committee of the cricket board probing allegations of financial irregularities against former IPL commissioner Lalit Modi.

After hearing both the parties, Justice Abhay Oka and Justice UD Salvi refused to stay the order passed on December 25 by Justice SJ Kathawala who had stalled the proceedings against Modi.

The BCCI had sought a stay on that order and prayed that the meeting of the disciplinary committee comprising Arun Jaitley, Jyotiraditya Scindia and Chirayu Amin should be allowed to be held on December 27 and 28.

However, the high court refused to allow the proceedings to be held against Modi for two days from today.

Owing to the high court order today, the proceedings of the disciplinary committee would remain stayed.

On December 25, Justice Kathawala had granted relief to Modi saying that a prima facie case had been made out for staying the proceedings of the BCCI disciplinary committee.

Modi had contended that under Rule 1(q) of BCCI Rules there can only be one disciplinary committee which has to be appointed by the Board at every Annual General Meeting (AGM). But the Board had not appointed any disciplinary committee at its AGM held on September 29.

He also argued that the BCCI was acting contrary to its own constitution and bye-laws.

The constitution of a separate disciplinary committee to hear the charges against Modi was in effect an attempt to amend the constitution and bye-laws of BCCI without following the procedure for amendment as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act and Rules, which are applicable to BCCI, Modi contended.

Modi's counsel submitted that an application was therefore moved before the Disciplinary Committee to discontinue further proceedings on behalf of Modi.

It was argued before the court that on December 11, 2010 BCCI held a special general meeting for extension of period of earlier disciplinary committee and for constituting another disciplinary committee under Rule 1(q).