Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition seeking indemnification against BCCI was maintainable. (ii) Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing BCCI to pay the penalty imposed upon the petitioner.
Issue (i): Whether a writ petition seeking indemnification against BCCI was maintainable.
Analysis: BCCI was treated as not answering the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The relief sought did not involve discharge of any public function. On that basis, the writ remedy was held unavailable for the claimed indemnification.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable against BCCI for the indemnification relief claimed.
Issue (ii): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing BCCI to pay the penalty imposed upon the petitioner.
Analysis: The petition sought a direction requiring BCCI to pay the penalty imposed under FEMA to the Enforcement Directorate on behalf of the petitioner. The Court held that no such mandamus could be issued in the circumstances, and characterised the relief as misconceived.
Conclusion: No writ of mandamus could be issued directing BCCI to pay the penalty.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed on both maintainability and merits, and was dismissed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ of mandamus cannot be issued against BCCI for a purely private indemnification claim unconnected with any public function, and BCCI is not amenable to writ jurisdiction as State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.