VoteUpIndia

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will soon initiate criminal proceedings against suspended IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi in several cases of financial irregularity in the IPL.

Modi was suspended after IPL 3 concluded, following allegations of financial irregularities in the Twenty20 league. The BCCI has set up a disciplinary committee to probe charges of irregularities by Modi, who has so far stayed away from the hearings citing security reasons and threat to his life from the underworld.

The case will be filed for Modi’s alleged Foreign exchange violations amounting to Rs 125 crore, this amount is said to be the felicitation fee from the IPL to World Sport group.

Incidentally, it’s the first criminal case filed in a court of law since the controversy broke, that will leave Modi no option but to appear in person.

In April, the BCCI had pointed out the five main charges against Modi, which included rigging of bids during the initial bidding process.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for former BCCI chief A C Muthiah, presented fresh documents in the court about Srinivasan’s alleged conflict of interest.

Muthiah’s petition argued that under the board constitution, no administrator in the BCCI should have direct or indirect commercial interest in the IPL, a rule that was changed nine months after Srinivasan bought the Chennai franchise.

CNN-IBN had brought to light on Wednesday the alleged connivance of Srinivasan with suspended IPL chairman Lalit Modi with the duo having tried to fix the bid of former England all-rounder Andrew Flintoff in Chennai Super Kings favour.

However, Srinivasan said he didn’t do anything wrong and his franchise outbid Rajasthan Royals as only they had the full purse of USD 2 million.

“I didn’t need anybody’s favour. Rajasthan Royals bid for USD 1.5m for Flintoff, I beat them at USD 1.55m. So where is the deal? How can I have any deal? How can Modi have control of Shane Warne unless he is the owner of the Rajasthan Royals,” he told another television channel.

The conflict of interest clause was diluted in order to legitimize the Indian Premier League T20 franchise India Cements Limited – the owner of Chennai Kings team – in which Srinivasan holds shares, Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the apex court.

Srinivasan is the company’s vice-chairman as well as managing director, a bench of Justice J M Panchal and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra was informed. The apex court on Thursday commenced hearing on two application by former BCCI president A C Muthiah pointing out that there was a conflict of interest in Srinivasan’s role as BCCI secretary and the stake holder in India Cements Limited.

Initiating his arguments on the matter, the senior counsel wondered if amendments to the rules could have a retrospective effect. He said that rules were amended subsequent to the award of franchise to India Cements Limited.

The senior counsel said that the action of Srinivasan could be described as “insider trading”. Singhvi told the court that the amendment to the ‘conflict of interest’ rules was affected on the recommendation of a committee that was constituted to frame anti-doping and anti-racial provisions for inclusion in the cricket body’s rules.

He said that surprisingly, the said committee did nothing on anti-doping and anti-racial provisions for which it was set up. When it was pointed out that there was no mention of T20 matches in the BCCI rules, Singhvi said that when these rules were framed no one knew anything about T20 as it was not in existence.

The senior counsel said that since the BCCI was the sole cricketing body in the country and any cricketing event conducted by it would be covered under its rules.

The court was told that conflict of interest provision was amended because under the unamended provisions of the BCCI, the office bearer of the cricketing body or its affiliate would have faced ban if they engaged in activities that were in conflict with commercial interest of the cricket’s apex body.

Singhvi assailed the Madras High Court order questioning the locus standi of Muthiah. He said going by the BCCI rules the former president had every right to move the court and his locus standi could not be questioned.

[Story Source] [Contest win Rs 1000-100,000 now]

This post was submitted by rishi maurya.

Thanks to www.google.co.in