JOIN USThe cash-starved Deccan Chargers’ termination from the IPL (Indian Premier League of cricket) was sealed by the Bombay High Court on Thursday, after the court quashed the status quo order passed by an arbitrator on the issue.
The court, after hearing the arguments from both the parties - BCCI and Deccan Chronicles Holdings Ltd (DCHL) that owned team Deccan Chargers (DC) - on Wednesday, had reserved its judgement in the matter for a day.
In its earlier hearing, the court had appointed an arbitrator - a retired judge C K Thakkar - who last week passed an order granting extension to the Deccan Chargers. The BCCI moved the court the next day challenging the arbitrator's decision.
The BCCI in its argument stressed on the point that IPL season 6 was all set to commence from next April and several good international players from Deccan Chargers “ will be left high and dry if they are not included in the auction list. Moreover DCHL had also been given sufficient time to submit a bank guarantee for participating in IPL season 6.
DCHL plea quashed
The court accepted the BCCI's argument and also quashed another petition moved by DCHL challenging the termination of the contract of its IPL franchise. Justice R D Dhanuka, while refusing to grant interim relief, stated that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to grant status quo and is ‘not superior’ to the High Court and thus could not pass an order overriding the court's instruction.
On October 12, the court had not only denied time extension but in its earlier hearing had also instructed DCHL to provide Rs 100 crore bank guarantee. Justice Dhanuka said “once the High Court has rejected relief, the plea made before the arbitrator is not maintainable.”
No bank guarantee
The judge also noted that “DCHL has still not furnished bank guarantee. Hence there is no change in circumstances to grant relief to DCHL. No case is made out for interim relief for granting stay on termination. The application seeking stay is a gross abuse of law. However, the legality and validity of termination would be a subject matter before the arbitrator.”
Late on Thursday, DCHL advocate Mona Bhide told Deccan Herald that the company "was yet to decide on its future strategy. As of now, we have not decided on the option of moving higher courts in the matter."