Dalmiya, Nair served notice to appear in court

Published: Friday, March 18, 2005, 23:53 [IST]
Share this on your social network:
   Facebook Twitter Google+    Comments Mail

Chennai:A city court on Friday directed former Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president Jagmohan Dalmiya and present secretary S K Nair to appear in court on March 21 for alleged contempt of court.

The notice to Dalmiya and Nair, returnable on March 21, was issued on a petition filed by city based Thayagaraya Recreation Club, by a city civil court judge Mohideen Pitchai.

The Judge, however, declined to issue notice to the International Cricket Council (ICC) and other members of the BCCI as sought for by the club in its contempt of court petition.

The club contended that Dalmiya, by attending the ICC executive meeting at Delhi, had violated the January 25 order of the court restraining the BCCI from nominating him as its representative to ICC meetings.

The Judge's January 25 order had been issued on a suit filed by the club seeking to restrain the Board's 75th adjourned annual general body meeting from nominating Dalmiya as its representative for ICC meetings.

Stating that the court had only restrained the BCCI, through an injunction, from appointing Dalmiya to attend the ICC meeting but had not restrained the Board from appointing anybody else to represent it, the club alleged that Dalmiya had "malafidely" closed the January 27 meeting of the Board atKolkata so as to ensure that no one else was appointed to represent the BCCI.

Pointing out that the court had restrained Dalmiya from representing the Board at ICC meetings, the club contended that since his term as Board president was over and in view of the fact that he had not been reappointed he had no right whatsoever to attend the meeting of the world cricketbody at Delhi.

Charging Dalmiya with willfully violating and deliberately disobeying the court orders, the club said he was guilty of committing gross contempt.

The club alleged that Dalmiya was allowed to attend the meeting on the pretext that nobody else had been appointed and "by wrongfully construing the January 25 order of this court."

Write Comments