FROM THE STANDS: Lalit Modi Claims Jaitley Has apos;personal Malice And Enmity apos; Against Him Going Back To 2006
FROM THE STANDS: Lalit Modi claims Jaitley has 'personal malice and enmity' against him going back to 2006 By [/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Qaiser+Mohammad+Ali Qaiser Mohammad Ali]
Published: 00:36 BST, 7 May 2013 | Updated: 00:36 BST, 7 May 2013
[ ] [ ] [ ] </a> [/indiahome/indianews/article-2320351/FROM-THE-STANDS-Lalit-Modi-claims-Jaitley-personal-malice-enmity-going-2006.html#comments
As the BCCI verdict in the Lalit Modi suspension case is awaited, 10timing.com a document has come to light that purportedly traces the genesis of the "personal malice and enmity", which Arun Jaitley is accused of holding against the suspended IPL chairman.
It dates back to 2006, or maybe earlier.
Jaitley is one of the three members of a BCCI disciplinary committee that will ascertain whether or not Modi actually indulged in "acts of individual misdemeanours", as the BCCI alleged while suspending him from the Board in April 2010.
Modi had unsuccessfully sought the recusal of Jaitley from the disciplinary committee after alleging that he was the first complainant against him in the IPL Kochi case that led to his suspension from the BCCI, and the formation of the three-member disciplinary panel.
Feud: Suspended IPL chairman Lalit Modi (left) has unsuccessfully sought the recusal of Arun Jaitley (right) from the BCCI disciplinary committee after claiming Jaitley has a personal grudge against him
The Modi-Jaitley rivalry apparently stems from a complaint that the former had lodged with the then BCCI president Sharad Pawar, in 2006.
Modi had alleged that Jaitley appeared as a lawyer on behalf of Kishore Rungta - his rival in the Rajasthan Cricket Association (RCA) and a former president of the state body - in the Supreme Court in a case related to the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA).
Modi, who had become the RCA president after defeating Rungta, alleges that Jaitley, by appearing for HPCA, acted "against the interests of the Board" and contravened the BCCI's Rule 6.2 of the 'Regulations for players, team officials, managers, umpires & administrators' as he was - and still is - president of the DDCA.
And by default, Jaitley was also a member of the BCCI working committee.
Modi's lawyer Mehmood M Abdi says that his client had submitted that complaint, dated April 9, 2006, in a civil suit filed in the Patiala House Courts in relation to his suspension case.
RELATED ARTICLES [# Previous] [# 1] [# Next] [/indiahome/indianews/article-2319939/Pensioners-set-pay-Delhi-High-Court-order.html Pensioners set for pay-out after Delhi High Court order] [/indiahome/indianews/article-2319850/Saradha-Group-collapse-Sudipta-Sen-claims-tipped-Trinamool-leaders-Saradhas-financial-troubles.html Sudipta claims he 'tipped off Trinamool leaders about...] Share this article Share
In this suit, in which Modi accuses Jaitley of holding "personal malice and enmity" against him, six respondents, including Jaitley and his two other colleagues in the disciplinary committee, Jyotiraditya Scindia and Chirayu Amin, have been named.
In his letter to Pawar, Modi quotes Rule 6.2 and goes on to buttress his point against Jaitley, who was also a member of the Rajya Sabha at the time.
"It's submitted that as a member of the working committee and as an administrator of the Board, Mr Jaitley cannot appear as a lawyer against the Board, and in my opinion also for the Board. It's also very clear that Mr Jaitley also cannot not only appear against or for the Board, but also cannot charge fees to the Board for his appearance as a lawyer for the Board," contended Modi.
"However, it has come to our notice that he has been continuously appearing as a lawyer for Mr Kishore Rungta not only against the complainant [RCA] in the Hon'ble Supreme Court but has recently, on 5-4-2006, appeared against the Board in the case relating to HPCA.
"It's important to note that Mr Jaitley not only appeared as the lawyer for Mr Anurag Thakur, incumbent president of HPCA, but also opposed the request of the Board for a short adjournment…"
Referring to the then BCCI fight between Jagmohan Dalmiya and Sharad Pawar, Modi further wrote: "It's submitted that Mr Jaitley in the past has also appeared for the Board and charged his fees to the Board, which was duly paid by the ex-treasurer of the Board."
Modi then goes on to enlist six instances of the alleged violation of the BCCI's rules and regulations for administrators by Jaitley.
They included "connivance" with Kishore Rungta in initiating legal proceedings against him "without first bringing it to the notice of the Board as mandated in Rule 6.2"; and appearing against the Board in Writ Petition No.495 of 2005 in the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Modi, who was Pawar's campaign manager in BCCI's elections, finally prayed in his complaint for the issuance of a show cause notice to Jaitley and his suspension from the Board under Rule 2.1.
It is, however, not known if Pawar took any action as Jaitley has remained DDCA president since December 31, 1999.
How Delhi qualified for the IPL games
Delhi was, by all accounts, not BCCI's first choice to shift the two IPL matches from Chennai due to the Tamil Nadu government's rigid stand against Sri Lankans appearing in the city.
The first choice was Bangalore, followed by Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. Delhi was the last option, and although the DDCA was reluctant in hosting the Qualifier 1 and the Eliminator, it accepted the BCCI's offer, thanks to the good rapport between N Srinivasan and DDCA chief Arun Jaitley.
Firoz Shah Kotla stadium will host two crucial IPL games this month
The BCCI was keen that Bangalore host the matches as Anil Kumble, after his resignation as NCA chairman, was back in the good books of Srinivasan.
"But the Kumbleheaded Karnataka State Cricket Association had to decline the offer due to the Assembly elections.
"Although the elections results would have come out by May 21 and 22, when the IPL matches are scheduled, anything would have been possible, including violence and postponement of elections, so no risks were taken," said a source.
Pune was not interested and Hyderabad was ruled out.
"Mumbai too was scrapped as a certain section of the BCCI and the Mumbai Cricket Association are not on good terms these days.
"The focus finally shifted to Delhi and DDCA, after some initial apprehensions, agreed to host the games."
The old champions
When it comes to the Champions Trophy, Dinesh Karthik and Irfan Pathan are India's longest serving players.
Both were part of the team that competed in the 2004 edition in England; the upcoming tournament - the last before a Test Championship replaces it - will be played in England too.
Battle-tested: Dinesh Karthik (left) and Irfan Pathan (right) are India's longest serving players
Pathan was also part of the 2006 Champions Trophy squad while Karthik staged a comeback in the 2009 edition held in South Africa.
Five members of the 2009 team - MS Dhoni, Virat Kohli, Amit Mishra and Suresh Raina - have survived, besides Pathan and Karthik.
Fighting for a fairness formula
Refusing to be disheartened, V Jayadevan - the architect of the VJD System devised to reset targets for truncated ODI/Twenty20 matches - continues to fight his lonely battle to replace the established Duckworth-Lewis method.
No one, not even the BCCI, has supported the Kerala engineer's efforts to prove that VJD is a fairer option to decide the matches reduced by rain or other reasons.
Game-changer: Creator of the VJD system of truncated matches V Jayadevan (left) has high hopes that his designs will get official backing from the newly-appointed chairman of the ICC Cricket Committee Anil Kumble (right)
Jayadevan is now making four requests: Get the VJD evaluated by an umpire/scorer with a good mathematical background, who doesn't belong to India or England; use VJD results as an official record alongside results of the D/L method for interrupted matches; use the VJD System officially for under-19 and women's matches; direct the BCCI and other countries, including England, to use the VJD System in their professional league matches.
Jayadevan's hopes have been raised since Anil Kumble became chairman of the ICC Cricket Committee, which has the power to evaluate the VJD System.
"They know that if it comes to the ICC Cricket Committee, if Kumble - and L Sivaramakrishnan as a panel member - suggest that this method deserves a better consideration, some members may agree to it," Jayadevan said.