ITV

Tag: N Santosh Hegde

  • SC stays Madras HC order on BCCI office bearers

    SC stays Madras HC order on BCCI office bearers

    NEW DELHI: The Indian cricket board can function as usual as the Supreme Court today stayed a Madras High Court order restraining office-bearers from taking over the board.

    But the apex board also kept cricket board’s past chief Jagmohan Dalmiya on the back foot by restraining him from becoming the board’s patron-in-chief.

    A bench, comprising Justices N Santosh Hegde and SB Sinha, felt that prima facie the high court did not act properly by passing the order restraining the newly elected board while entertaining a review petition filed by Netaji Cricket Club (NCC), the petitioner before the high court, agencies reported today.

    The Bench noticed skeletons tumbling out of the cupboards as NCC pointed out serious irregularities in the recent elections of the Board and observed that “if we are satisfied, we may order holding of fresh elections for the board.”

    After hearing the Board of Control for Cricket in India, Delhi District Cricket Association (DDCA), NCC and DC Agashe, representing the Maharashtra Cricket Association, the bench fixed 26 October for final hearing on the petitions and passed an interim direction staying the Madras High Court order.

    Taking into account alleged irregularities in the election of Ranbir Singh Mahendra as the board president and the apprehension that Dalmiya would become patron-in-chief of the board, the Bench said that “in the meanwhile, Dalmiya is restrained from getting elected/appointed as the patron-in-chief.”

    The BCCI had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court on Saturday challenging a Madras HC order restraining newly-elected board officials from functioning and the appointment of Supreme Court judge S Mohan as its interim administrator.

    The BCCI in its SLP had contended that if the high court order was implemented, it would bring Indian cricket to a standstill as even selection of the Indian team for the India-Australia series would not be possible.

    Meanwhile, Justice Mohan filed a report today in the Madras High Court regarding the “treatment meted out to him” when he had gone to the BCCI office in Mumbai to take charge on Saturday. It may be recalled that when Justice Mohan reached the office on Saturday, he was greeted by a locked door.

    “The matter is confidential. But I have filed a factual report,” the Press Trust of India filed from Chennai quoted Justice Mohan as saying.

  • BCCI argues Zee writ not maintainable

    BCCI argues Zee writ not maintainable

    NEW DELHI: Arguments relating to the Indian cricket rights issue opened today in the Supreme Court. The Indian cricket board and ESPN-Star Sports were the first to present their point of view and both questioned the maintainability of the writ petition filed by Zee Telefilms challenging cancellation of exclusive telecast rights purported to have been granted to it earlier.

    Senior counsel KK Venugopal, appearing for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), raised objection against the maintainability of the Zee petition at the very outset of the hearing today before a five-judge constitutional Bench.

    Venugopal argued that since the BCCI was neither a state nor an instrumentality of the state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the Zee petition was not maintainable and it should be dismissed.

    The five-judge bench comprises Justices N Santosh Hegde, SN Variava, BP Singh, HK Sema and SB Sinha.

    Reiterating that Zee’s petition is not maintainable, Venugopal argued that the BCCI cannot be termed to be under any government control as it is an autonomous body and does not receive any funds from the Central or the state governments and does not have any government representative on its board.

    “So far as cricket is concerned, it’s not part of the government. It’s a sport, an entertainment,” Venugopal argued, trying to suggest that the government does not have any direct or indirect control over the BCCI, which is free to conduct the affairs of sports as it chooses.

    What Venugopal did admit in the court today, where the hearing began around 10:30 am to a near-packed house and continued non-stop till the lunch break, was that like any other apex body of sports in the country, the BCCI is the apex sports body for cricket in India, “recognised by the government (of India).”

    According to Venugopal, BCCI’s funding is not regulated by the government and the only way that government diktat can seem to be running over the cricket board relates to the Societies Registration Act, under which BCCI is registered as a non-profit organisation.

    To a question from one of the judges as to who exercises the rights on telecast rights, BCCI counsel submitted that the cricket board has the “right to choose who should get the telecast rights.”

    It was also pointed out that BCCI is one of the member bodies of the International Cricket Council (ICC). But at this point one of the judges did observe that BCCI is member of the ICC as the country’s cricket representative because the government of India recognises it and the cricket board is dependant for its status on the government.

    While concluding his lengthy arguments, which had references to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Venugopal said since the BCCI, amongst other things, conducts its own business, “no part of its functioning can be treated governmental.”

    The arguments for ESPN-Star Sports were presented by former advocate-general Soli Sorabjee and was on similar lines to the petition it filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the “initial” award of the cricket rights to Zee.

    ESPN-Star Sports has contended, amongst other things, the following in its counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court today:

    * There is no concluded contract between Zee Telefilms and the BCCI

    * Zee had failed to disclose the fact to Bombay High Court that a careful reading of the draft letter of intent (from the BCCI) highlighted that that the LoI was not a conclusive understanding between BCCI and Zee on the telecasting and broadcasting rights.

    * Though there’s an arbitration clause (in the cricket tender document), Zee has dragged the matter to the court.

    * The invitation to tender required the broadcasters to have at least two years of experience and that Zee gets disqualified under clause 2 of the tender document, read with clause 3.2 b.

    * Zee’s counsel had admitted in the Bombay High Court that Zee does not have the necessary experience required.

    * Valuation by PriceWaterhouse Cooper (PwC), the audit firm that vetted the various bids, was an essential criterion of the tender process. The failure to involve PwC for the purpose of a full and proper evaluation has resulted in the entire process being liable to be set aside.

    The apex court had yesterday issued notices to BCCI, ESPN-Star Sports, PwC and the government of India on a petition filed by Zee challenging the cancellation of the award of cricket match telecast rights to it.

    Zee’s counsel Harish Salve could not conclude his arguments today.

    In its petition, Zee has said the cricket board had entered in a malafide manner to cancel the award of telecast rights to it and alleged that the entire drama before the Bombay High Court was enacted to benefit one foreign sports channel.

  • DD gets to air matches, but SC puts riders

    DD gets to air matches, but SC puts riders

    NEW DELHI: ‘The entire nation can only cheer, if the entire nation gets to watch.’

    This is part of self-congratulatory advertisement that India’s pubcaster Prasar Bharati is planning to bring out tomorrow after the Supreme Court today, in an interim order, directed Ten Sports to make available a live feed of the remaining three one dayers and three Test matches of the Indo-Pak cricket series to pubcaster Doordarshan even as the war of words continued late in the day with both the warring factions claiming victory and expressing happiness.

    The direction was given by a three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice V N Khare and Justices N Santosh Hegde and S H Kapadia. The court observed that it would determine later the quantum of revenue losses, if any, suffered by any of the parties and directed DD to deposit a sum of Rs 400 million (in addition to Rs 100 million deposited earlier) as a guarantee within three days.Both the warring factions – Ten Sports and Prasar Bharati – claimed that ultimately the interest of general public of India proved victorious.

    K S Sarma, CEO of Prasar, which looks after Doordarshan and All India Radio, said that it was his “dharma” to try getting terrestrial rights in public interest. Earlier in the day, Dubai-based Taj TV Ltd CEO Chris McDonald had quipped, “In the larger public interest, Taj Dubai will be beaming the Ten Sports signal, including the India-Pak matches live on Ten Sports in cable homes across India as well as on DD in the hope and belief that justice will (finally) prevail.”

    According to Taj Television India Pvt Ltd MD Sharmista Rijhwani, “Today’s judgment from the Supreme Court is a landmark judgment and Taj India appreciates the statesmanship and balance with which the judiciary provided comfort to the public as well as assured Taj India of recovery of its commercial losses.”

    Asked about the claims of compensation being, made by Ten; Sarma said that his orgnaisation would convey to the court the losses that DD would incur by transmitting the Ten signals in toto – complete with ad and logo.

    The Supreme Court, however, has directed that Doordarshan would carry the logo of Ten Sports along with its ads half an hour before and after a match and during breaks would not carry any ad booked by it.

    Finding that the issues involved in the case were contentious – at one time Ten Sports’ lawyers, reportedly, expressed his objection to the signals for the Test matches – the court has fixed 15 April for the final hearing of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) of Taj TV India Pvt. Ltd. seeking to quash the interim orders of the high courts of Chennai and Mumbai, which had directed that DD be made available the live signals by Ten.

    Both the parties concerned, however, maintained after the court observation that they are ready for an out of court settlement, provided the other party makes the first move.

    Doordarshan was also directed to see that the signals beamed on DD National channel are as much restricted and remain within India. It was made clear that DD should use a satellite that should not cover Middle East at any cost and avoid beaming its signals to Far East, if technically possible.

    The court also issued notice to Doordarshan on a contempt petition filed by Taj India, which alleged that Doordarshan showed its advertisements during the telecast of the one dayer yesterday during the break.

    After having made his ‘dharma’ and ‘karma’ clear, Sarma said, “We’d abide by whatever the court has said and the ad (in the past) had been booked by us as the court had been silent on this aspect earlier.”

    But in the public interest, several hundred millions of rupees of Indian taxpayers’ money is likely to be lost, though government officials today indicated that a law would be brought forward soon, which would make it mandatory for the national broadcaster, DD, to be made available terrestrial 
    signals of any event of national importance by any telecast rights holder on mutually agreed commercial terms.

  • Sahara moves SC; seeks to take legal battle back to Calcutta HC

    NEW DELHI: The Subrata Roy-promoted Sahara India Media Company has decided to fight it out in the court “on merit” and not give up on the Rs 600 million serial on Sahara Manoranjan channel, Karishma – The Miracles of 
    Destiny.
    Today (Monday, 19 May), Sahara moved the Supreme Court seeking to take the legal battle back to the Calcutta High Court to fight a suit filed by New York-based novelist Barbara Taylor Bradford alleging that mega serial Karishma ..was an unauthorised copy of her popular novel A Woman of Substance.
    Sumit Roy, head of Sahara’s media and entertainment business, refused to comment on today’s developments saying the case was “sub-judice”. But sources close to the company told indiantelevision.com, “Sahara has decided to fight the case on its merit and it is highly unlikely that it would go in for an out of court settlement with Bradford.”
    The mega serial, starring Bollywood actress Karisma Kapoor, has been off-air despite airing its first episode on 12 May 2003. The serial has been touted as one of the biggest and costliest serials of Indian television that had the potential of turning round the fortunes of Sahara Manoranjan, a la KBC and Star Network in India.
    On 14 May, the Supreme Court had confirmed the stay on the telecast of the mega serial Karishma on the allegation of Bradford that the serial was based 
    on her novel, A Woman of Substance.
    The Supreme Court decision on the Special Leave Petition filed by Taylor challenging an order of the Division Bench allowing telecast of the TV soap, 
    is still pending, a Press Trust of India report said today.
    The PTI has reported that a vacation Bench comprising Justice N Santosh Hegde and Justice Shivaraj V Patil, before whom the application seeking permission for going back to the Single Judge Bench was mentioned today, posted the matter for hearing on Thursday.
    The report adds that the Sahara’s application today used the plea – “on mature consideration and on legal advice” – while stating that it should have accepted one of the suggestion of the Bench on May 14 to go back to the Single Judge Bench of the High Court, which, on 7 May, had restrained the channel from telecasting the serial.
    Sahara also suggested that the 12 May order of the Division Bench of the High Court, allowing the airing of the serial, could also be set aside and the Single Judge Bench be requested to decide the matter expeditiously.
    Rejecting Sahara Manoranjan’s pleas for vacation of the 12 May interim order staying the telecast of the serial, the Supreme Court, on 14 May, had continued the stay on airing the serial and also stayed all proceedings 
    before the Kolkata high court, the PTI report stated.
    The apex court on 12 May had stayed the high court order giving the go-ahead for telecast of the mega serial on Sahara Manoranjan. The serial was telecast on that day but was suspended a day later.
    On Monday, 12 May, a single judge bench of the high court refused to vacate the may seven injunction order restraining the TV channel from airing the serial. The TV channel, then, moved the division bench of the high court in the afternoon and got stay of the injunction order.
    Not giving up, Barbara, through her solicitor Mondal, filed an appeal before the vacation bench in the evening and the bench of Justices Hegde and Patil heard the special leave petition at home late in the evening and in an 
    ex-parte order stayed the airing of the serial.