TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Special Leave Petition Withdrawn; No Writ Relief Against BCCI Under Article 226 for FEMA Penalties</h1> The SC dismissed the special leave petition as withdrawn, clarifying that the petitioner cannot seek writ relief against the BCCI under Article 226 for ... Penalty imposed under FEMA - petitioner was appointed as Vice President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”), and claims to have been appointed Chairman of the IPL governing body, a subcommittee of the BCCI - relief in this case is firstly against the BCCI on the ground that by-laws require the BCCI to indemnify the petitioner. HC decided [2024 (12) TMI 1149 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have consistently held that the BCCI is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed upon the petitioner by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI. HELD THAT:- Even if the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable the petitioner will be entitled to avail a civil remedy. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn making it clear that the petitioner will be entitled to avail such civil remedies as may be available to him in law. Summary: The Court 'Delay condoned.' Counsel conceded that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable, but the petitioner 'will be entitled to avail a civil remedy.' Consequently, the special leave petition is 'dismissed as withdrawn making it clear that the petitioner will be entitled to avail such civil remedies as may be available to him in law.' The order disposes of any pending application(s). Essential legal reasoning: the petition was not pursued on merits under Article 226; rather, the disposition rests on counsel's concession and the petitioner's continued right to pursue appropriate civil remedies in accordance with law. The procedural relief granted was limited to condoning delay and dismissing the special leave petition as withdrawn, without adjudication of substantive claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
