Against the order dated 31^st May,18 passed by the Special Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED) Mumbai, Lalit Kumar Modi, former IPL Commissioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi. Under the said order a penalty of Rs. 10,65,00000.00 has been levied on him.

The appeal is based against the erroneous findings of the adjudicating authority whereby he held Lalit Modi was responsible for shifting of 2^ndSeason (2009) of IPL to South Africa and transfer of BBCI funds to Cricket South Africa (CSA) and other financial transactions connected with it without seeking  RBI permission. Along with BCCI others like N. Srinivasan, M.P.Pandov, then Secretary and Treasurer of BCCI and A.K. Nazir Khan, then Manager of the State Bank of Travancore have been held guilty and have been levied penalties.

Firstly, the adjudicating authority has erred by holding the transfer of funds from BBCI to CSA as capital account payment whereas; it was current account payment for which no RBI permission was required. This is the position taken by State of India, SBI ( as now the State Bank of Travancore stands merged into SBI)

Moreover, as the Board of Control for Cricket in India is a society registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Rules 1975. The office bearers of BCCI are: President; Secretary; Joint Secretary and treasurer who are responsible for the conduct of affairs of BCCI; this is a fact which has been noticed in the ED complaint dated 16/11/2011 itself and impugned order as well.

The affairs of BCCI are conducted by the general body, the Working Committee of BCCI, and office bearers of BCCI. BCCI has various subcommittees as well like: Legal Committee; Marketing Committee; Finance Committee; etc. Such committees assist and aid in the smooth functioning of the BCCI. However such committees/subcommittees do not have a separate legal identity and chairpersons of such committees are neither office bearers of BCCI nor are they responsible for conduct of affairs of BCCI.

That, in the General Body Meeting of BCCI dated 28/09/2007 it was decided that Mr N Srinivasan who was then the Honorary Secretary of BCCI would open and operate a new bank account in the name of BCCI – IPL. Thus all financial transactions and financial decisions relating to BCCI – IPL were responsibilities of Mr N Srinivasan. However, as it appears no such separate new bank account was opened by Mr N Srinivasan. In fact, all remittances/transactions which are subject matter of the impugned order have been made from the account of the BCCI itself where Lalit Modi had no control over the day to day affairs or any financial power.

In the working committee meeting dated 22/03/2009 it was decided that IPL tournament for the IPL Season – 2 should be shifted out of the country either to England or South Africa. This decision as to finally deciding the venue was left to Mr Shashank Manohar who was then the president of BCCI.

It was also decided that BCCI would open a bank account after obtaining clearance from RBI and the said account will be operated by the honorary treasurer Mr M.P Pandove.

With regard to the opening of the bank account after obtaining clearance from RBI, an appropriate resolution was to be framed by the then honorary secretary of BCCIi.e Mr N.Srinivasan.

That it is noteworthy that during the entire investigation this aspect has not been investigated, whether honorary secretary Mr N Srinivasan had framed a resolution in terms of the decision taken in the working committee meeting dated 22/03/2009?  And, if no such resolution was drafted by him what was the reason for not drafting such resolution in terms of the decision already taken by the working committee.

Other grounds for filing the appeal are that entire adjudication proceedings have been held in violation of principles of natural justice, this violation of principles of natural justice had many facets like refusal to provide a copy of reply filed by the Main noticee (BCCI).

Refusal to provide a copy of the reply filed by Authorised Dealer and other noticees; refusal to even grant inspection of the file before final arguments.

Separate holding of the proceedings with respect to each of the noticees and the joint holding proceedings was held only at the fag end of proceedings.

Not adjudicating upon and communicating decisions on applications made during adjudication proceedings including.

Application by Lalit Modi seeking cross-examinations of Mr. Peter Griffiths,  Mr. Ajay Kumar; of RBI who advised ED that the concerned account was a capital account.

Not summoning the witnesses who were relevant and whose statements were relied upon in the complaint despite there being a specific provision in the FEMA adjudication rules in this regard.

Not taking on record evidence filed as defense evidence and not granting an opportunity to lead defense evidence by Lalit Modi despite the request being made in this regard and not granting an opportunity to conclude the oral arguments.

Mehmood Abdi

General Counsel of Lalit Kumar Modi