JOIN USFaced with a contempt notice, former BCCI president Anurag Thakur on Monday tendered his "unconditional and unqualified apology" before the Supreme Court.
Thakur, himself present in the court, said he had never intended to file any false information before the apex court and filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the averments made by him led to the initiation of contempt proceedings.
"I (Thakur) have tendered my unconditional and unqualified apology and I have explained the circumstances. I had not intended to file any false information," senior advocate P S Patwalia, appearing for Thakur, told the bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra.
The bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, fixed the matter for hearing on April 17 and also exempted Thakur from personal appearance on that day.
Meanwhile, the court-appointed Committee of Administrators (COA) led by former Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) Vinod Rai, asked the court to restrain the state associations of the BCCI from holding any meetings until they filed an undertaking about complaince of the suggestions made by the Justice R M Lodha panel.
"They are sitting on huge amount of funds and they do not want to comply with the Supreme Court's order. Let them give the undertaking first," senior advocate Parag Tripathi, appearing for the COA, said, adding, "huge amount of unaccounted money are with them".
Sibal said the meetings of the state associations with the BCCI was important with the upcoming ICC meetings with regard to the revenues.
"Let them (Committee of Administrators) go to the ICC and negotiate with it. But they should give an undertaking in the court that BCCI and the government will not lose money. Let them handle it but no money should be lost," Sibal said.
On amicus curiae senior advocate Gopal Subramanium's plea that the associations must file the undertaking as they did not comply with Lodha report, Sibal said, "The report is not a gospel truth. We will not sign a death warrant just because somebody wants us to sign it."
The bench said it would hear the arguments on this issue on March 20.