Bpc Case Study

1039 Words 5 Pages
As per the first question SC learned defined “state” under article 12 of Constitution. Even though BCCI at time performs functions for the public, it may not make much difference in the case. To define the state, court though of many case such as Sukhdev and Ors. etc v. Bhagatram Sarfar Singh Raguvanshi and And. etc (1975) SCC 421, in this case question was whither or employee under Oil and natural Gas Commission and Indian Fiance Corporation and Life Insurance Corporation under Article 14 and 16 against the Corporation. Ramana Dayaram Sherry V. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. (1979) 3 SCC489, in this case court learned corporation within the incorporation of Companies Act, 1956 or the Societies Registration Act, …show more content…
With that being said, support of section 2,4 and 6 Prob-Committee was used to as source of law to make admission to the Honorable Court. Future more with all examination of documents, it was clear that Guruanth Meiyappan and Raj Kundra were enveloped with some sort of corruption in regards violating sole purpose of goodness of the sport cricket which is adored by many. So within the support of natural justice, image of BCCI and IPL is on stake with any foul play caused by players, owner or associate. Hence fact and circumstances give BCCI within all the rules and regulation give power to exit any team found of causing bad harm to in the game of …show more content…
Srinvasan goes, there was no proper finding or channel conducted that could find hard proofs binding Mr. Srinvasan from commenting in spot fixing. Although with that though in mind for the court, counsel of opposite sit argued that Mr. Srinvasan used his name to hide any such circumstances to tie him for spot fixing. Also counsel of the opposite side argued regarding committee set up that jeopardize role of function by having unwanted over power authority to hide unwanted issues. But the court disagrees as the committee set up that are of two former high court judge would have any intention to over throw it 's function. Mudgal Committee was correct of allegation Mr. Gurunath however one cannot raise question to Mr. Srinivasan of their no only preemption of act rather than act perfumed and proofs that can be admission before the

Related Documents