Deccan Chronicle case: Bombay HC's verdict on BCCI appeal tomorrow

The Bombay High Court will pronounce its verdict tomorrow on BCCI's appeal against the status quo ordered by the arbitrator in its dispute with debt-laden DCHL the stay on which had led to the Cricket Board going ahead with the termination of latter's IPL franchise Deccan Chargers.

The Deccan Chargers had lost its place in the IPL last Saturday after the high court stayed the order of the
arbitrator for maintaining status quo in the matter till further hearing and Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) said the termination stands following the court's order.

A day after ending the Deccan Chargers' franchise, the BCCI had begun the process of finding a new IPL team inviting bids in respect of 12 cities -- Ahmedabad, Cuttack, Noida Dharamsala, Indore, Hyderabad, Kanpur, Kochi, Nagpur, Rajkot, Ranchi and Vizag.

"IPL season 6 is going to commence from April next year. There are several good international players from the Deccan Chargers team who will be left high and dry if they are not included in the auction list," senior BCCI counsel Raju Subramanium submitted before Justice R D Dhanuka who reserved the order for tomorrow.

Subramanium said DCHL was given sufficient time to submit the bank guarantee of Rs 100 crore as directed by another judge of the High Court. "Justice Kathawala had kept DCHL and BCCI's interest in mind and asked them to submit bank guarantee if they wanted to participate in the IPL 6 season."

DCHL's failure to submit bank guarantee of Rs 100 crore of a nationalised bank allowed BCCI to initiate action in furtherance to the termination.

Senior counsel S U Kamdar, appearing for DCHL, today told the court that the company, which is in financial
difficulty, should be allowed to sell the team. "To help BCCI, the company decided to go out of IPL 6 by selling the team. But the cricket board has a problem with that also," he said.

Meanwhile, a lawyer for the Ratnakar Bank said during the argument that BCCI should give more time to DCHL to furnish the bank guarantee, and if DCHL was in the position to furnish it, there was no harm in giving it time, which would be in players' interest. BCCI, however, opposed this saying that High Court order said the guarantee has to be submitted through a nationalised bank.