https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274960 A majority of the SC construed "Administrator" purposively and held that a former BCCI president was not an administrator merely by virtue of past office, so the appellant lacked locus standi and a maintainable civil cause to challenge the regulatory amendment; the declaratory reliefs were also not founded on any personal legal character or right, and BCCI was treated as a private autonomous society rather than the State. On interim relief, the majority held that the unamended conflict-of-interest rule did not cover IPL and Twenty20 events, the amendment was validly introduced, and no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury justified suspension. The dissent would have suspended the amendment. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:49:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274960 A majority of the SC construed "Administrator" purposively and held that a former BCCI president was not an administrator merely by virtue of past office, so the appellant lacked locus standi and a maintainable civil cause to challenge the regulatory amendment; the declaratory reliefs were also not founded on any personal legal character or right, and BCCI was treated as a private autonomous society rather than the State. On interim relief, the majority held that the unamended conflict-of-interest rule did not cover IPL and Twenty20 events, the amendment was validly introduced, and no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury justified suspension. The dissent would have suspended the amendment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274960