TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Kashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

SC dismisses Modi’s plea seeking direction to BCCI to pay ED penalty

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former cricket administrator Lalit Modi’s petition seeking a direction to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a penalty of Rs 10.65 crore imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).

Advertisement

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan, however, said Modi could avail civil remedies available under the law.

Advertisement

The Bombay High Court had on December 19, 2024, imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on Modi while dismissing his petition seeking an order to BCCI to pay a penalty of Rs 10.65 crore imposed on him by ED for violating FEMA. The petition was “frivolous and wholly misconceived” as the adjudication authority under FEMA has imposed the penalty on Modi, the HC had said.

Contending that he was appointed as vice president of BCCI, during which period he was also the chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing body — a sub-committee of the BCCI — Modi claimed that BCCI was supposed to indemnify him as per the bylaws.

Referring to a 2005 SC judgment, the High Court, however, said BCCI was not a ‘State’ as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. “In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner (Modi) in the context of penalties imposed upon the petitioner by ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to BCCI,” the HC had said and directed Modi to pay a sum of Rs 1 lakh to Tata Memorial Hospital within four weeks.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement