Bar & Bench News Network
Even before the upcoming season of IPL can take off, it is seeing a lot of action in the courts. After Kings XI Punjab, it is now the turn of Rajasthan Royals to file a petition at the Bombay High Court against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) against the termination of their franchisee earlier this month.
The matter is listed before a single Bench headed by Justice S.J. Vazifdar under the Arbitration Act and is expected to come up for hearing tomorrow, October 27, 2010. While Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited, the holding company of Rajasthan Royals, is being represented by Crawford Bayley, the BCCI is represented by the Mumbai office of Amarchand Mangaldas Suresh A. Shroff whose team is led by Partner Sharad Mathkar.
After the BCCI had decided to terminate the contract of Rajasthan Royals, BCCI President Shashank Manohar had said: "They had a different bidder during auctions. The agreement was entered in the name of a different company. The shareholding patterns were different and, then, the shares were transferred to different people without the permission of the governing council."
A statement issued by Rajasthan Royals’ executives said, "We have tried to meet with the BCCI to understand the basis for the termination, which was received without notice. We do not understand what we have done wrong. It is, therefore, our duty to IPL fans, our employees, our players and our partners to pursue the matter. The matter is expected to be listed this Wednesday. We would not like to state anything further, since it is sub judice."
The termination of their franchisee is not the only problem being faced by the Rajasthan Royals. The Enforcement Directorate which investigates foreign exchange rule violations for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) is currently investigating Kings XI for FEMA violations and a show-cause notice has been sent to the Rajasthan Royals for alleged violations under FEMA.
Sify.com reports that the Rajasthan Royals franchise is owned by Emerging Media group and is chaired by Manoj Badale. Other investors include Lachlan Murdoch, Aditya S. Chellaram and Suresh Chellaram, who is ousted IPL chairman Lalit Modi’s brother-in-law.
What remains to be seen is whether IPL 4 will be able to overcome the legal hurdles that are plaguing the tournament and if fans will be able to enjoy some on field action.
|
Be the first to post a comment 
Related Stories
- Crawford Bayley brings interim relief to Rajasthan Royals franchisee JIPL by getting it back on the cricket field
- Axis Bank buys Bombay Dyeing building: Khaitan and Crawford Bayley advice
- M &A market heats up: Crawford Bayley advise Wall Street Finance in its acquisition by Spice Corp
- Crawford Bayley put Euro Multivision on IPO route
- India Inc sticks to QIP route: Kanga, Wadia Ghandy, Amarchand and Crawford Bayley benefit
- Crawford Bayley and Khaitan latest beneficiaries of flourishing Indian pharma sector; assist in Hospira-Orchid acquisition
- Crawford Bayley assists Talwalkers's walk to expansion
Other News
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
- Siddharth Wahi joins JSA as Of Counsel; Former Baker Mckenzie SA to focus on Energy Sector
- Re-Upped Round up May 16
- Bombay HC taking proactive steps to fight pendency; Special committee to examine pending civil suits for speedy disposal
- CLAT Booze Bills: NUJS defies providing information under RTI Act
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (2)










