9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of the preliminary objection on the jurisdictional issue against the petitioner under Rule 4(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the Honorary Secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, hereinafter referred to as "the BCCI", a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 having its registered office at M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai from September, 2008 to September, 2011. He has further pleaded that the BCCI is a society having 30 members, of whom 25 are State Cricket Associations, 2 are private cricket clubs and 3 are Government bodies and has no individual me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ", a decision was taken to hold the IPL-2 at South Africa and the CSA also agreed for the following terms, namely, (i) that all payments made by the BCCI to CSA would be transferred to a dedicated bank account of CSA in the name of IPL South Africa; (ii) that the payments for IPL related expenditure would be met from this bank account; (iii) that all ticket revenues would be deposited into this bank account; etc. In terms of the CSA host agreement, a separate bank account in the name of CSA Pty Ltd., IPL(SA) was made for the second edition of IPL, BCCI transferred a total sum of USD 49,862,799.42 to CSA between 31.3.2009 and 27.8.2010 in foreign exchange through the State Bank of Travancore, Jaipur Branch who is the authorised dealer. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 2(u) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, the provisions of Section 42 are not applicable, therefore, there is no jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice to the petitioner. However, rejecting all the contentions made by the petitioner, the second respondent came to the conclusion that the status of BCCI as a company has already been settled by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.5305 of 2013 (Shashank Vyankatesah Manohar v. Union of India and another) in its judgment dated 7.8.2013, wherein it has been held that the invocation of the vicarious liability clause framed against the noticees under Section 42(1) and (2) has been justified. 4. Mr.P.R.Raman further submitted that it is well settled that a re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of 'company' used in Section 42 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act and that it does not extend to all persons covered by the definition of the 'person' used by Section 2(u) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act. While repelling the said contention, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in its long and detailed judgment dated 7.8.2013, has held against the President of the BCCI that the impugned notice is legally maintainable and hence it would be too much to say that the complaint against the BCCI is not maintainable, as it is not a company or a firm or an association of persons, but it is an association of societies. The said judgment also has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. 6. As the issue raised i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
