Amarchand Mangaldas won a stay in the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) for the Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI), against the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) February order that imposed, according to the PTI, a Rs 52.24 crore ($9.6m) fine on the cricket body.
Amarchand Mumbai competition partner Nisha Kaur Uberoi and senior counsel C Aryama Sundaram acted for the BCCI, which was directed to deposit 25 per cent of the penalty amount within 30 days by the COMPAT, according to an Amarchand press release.
19 July 2013 has been fixed as the next date for hearing, at which the CCI will appear.
In November 2012 a complainant had alleged irregularities during the IPL cricketing tournament in granting franchise rights for team ownership, media rights, and sponsorships. In February the CCI held that the abuse by the BCCI was of a “grave nature” in denying market access to potential competitors and including similar clauses in any future agreement, according to the PTI report.
The Rs 52.24 crore fine was part of a series of financial penalties imposed by the government as part of a multi-department focus on the BCCI and its allied businesses, and included a Rs 2,300 crore income tax bill over a three-year period and a Rs 100 crore penalty demanded from IPL team Rajasthan Royals, according to ESPN Cricinfo.
Related disputes have been running for a long time, with Crawford Bayley having represented the Royals in the Bombay High Court in 2010 against the BCCI, again represented by Amarchand.
Original CCI orders:
- Sh. Surinder Singh Barmi vs Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI)
- Per R. Prasad, Member (Supplementary)
- Per M. L. Tayal, Member (Minority)
Photo by vhines200
Comments
Agree
Doesn't the story need to be newsworthy independent of how it's been reported? Is this? Have you compared this to previous decisions on interim relief by the same tribunal, or just printed the am press release? Is it newsworthy, but not journalism worthy?
But it is a fairly interesting and big case involving very well-known parties and large sums of money under a relatively new regulator.
also, your story provides no details of the case. I agree the context is interesting and, having read the decision of the CCI, i'd love to see how this works out, but is the stay of penalty worth reporting, merely because you got a press release on it (and did the press release seriously omit Mr. Sundaram's name?!)
also, weren't there other lawyers representing BCCI in the same matter, or was it only AM and Mr. Sundaram? I believe there are others
as a more general matter, do you (or other press houses) print all press releases that come out (subject to them not having been printed by too many other media houses)?
Stop making an issue of a non issue, you can choose to ignore.
Are you jealous that your firm doesn't do much (read as none) Competition Law work !!!
Get a life man and let Kian do his stuff, the way he thinks best.
Are you single, Kian?
It's fair enough if people air their views on our coverage and always useful to know what people think.
I won't accuse you of being blind, but attention to detail maybe?
1) Is this the highest penalty or the most high profile penalty stayed by the COMPAT recently? Do all such stays require a 25% deposit? ( i believe you had earlier reported that DLF, who was fined much much more, did not have to deposit anything. Why the difference?)
2) Did the AMSS press release seriously not mention Mr. Sundaram the first time around?
3) What is the case about? What are the clauses the CCI found abusive?
4) Were there any other lawyers appearing for the BCCI in this matter that the AMSS press release also excluded?
5) What process do you follow to verify/complete the information received through a press release before publishing it?
I think it's fair to say that your website has fundamentally altered the legal news world over the last few years, and has provided access to information that most of us would not have even dreamt of having a few years back. I believe you should be congratulated for that, but, to use a competition law term, that also puts you in a position of strength vis a vis competitors and consumers in the market (for legal news) and means that you have a special responsibility towards them (us!). Hence, since you're often our only source of such information, it would be great if you could answer the above questions, just so we know how the press release system works, and also what this case is really about, and the context of the fine.
Thanks
Can confirm for the benefit of all that Amarchand in its release did mention having briefed Senior Counsel C Aryama Sundaram. Further it also mentioned, BCCI advocates Raghu Raman and Akhila Kaushik being part of the legal team before the COMPAT.
If you like I can forward you the mail to see for yourselves.
Hence, credits to the above named lawyers or individuals for given at the first instance only.
Thanks
Thank you for your comment.
1) The aim of the story was to report who acted on the latest development, which had not been reported yet, in a high profile case involving the BCCI and competition law.
At this juncture for such a brief news item, we were happy to leave it up to readers to decide on the implications of the legal issues but we hope to keep an eye on the case and perhaps provide more analysis. In any case, merely putting the information out there that the Compat has stayed but asked for a deposit is interesting.
2) The AMSS press release did mention Mr Sundaram, which Kian accidentally thought had been omitted in the initial story (thank you 4.1 'Why?' for pointing out - our editorial team of two was a little stretched last night, hence the confusion).
3) The case is about the BCCI abusing its dominant position to restrict franchisee rights, media rights, and sponsorship rights in the IPL tournament. The orders in the original matter, if interested, are on the CCI website:
http://cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/612010.pdf
http://cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/612010D.pdf
http://cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/612010S.pdf
We have now added those links to the story too.
4) The BCCI's legal team before Compat includes advocates Raghu Raman and Akhila Kaushik.
5) Our general process in reporting deals or cases on the back of press releases is fairly straightforward. We usually decide if something is worth being reported, taking into consideration parties, value, timeliness, exclusivity, reader interest, etc., and then query the law firm for other law firms involved and additional information.
Thank you for the kind words about Legally India's role in this market. We hope our answers have addressed all your concerns.
Best wishes,
Prachi
What I meant about the article providing some background on the case is that you could have mentioned what the offending clause was. Currently it just says something about similar clauses in future agreements, which is very vague, as it doesn't mention what the clause was in the first place. My understanding is that the BCCI franchise agreements have a clause that says that the BCCI cannot support or allow any parallel league to come up for the duration of the IPL, and the CCI thought that this was the BCCI using its regulatory powers to further its commercial ends. It is my personal opinion that the story would have been better with a little bit of background about the case, or a link to a previous story where you've discussed it. That would also save you from the allegation of being an AM propaganda machine :-)
Best regards
Quote from LI article on this
"Amarchand Mumbai competition partner Nisha Kaur Uberoi and senior counsel C Aryama Sundaram acted for the BCCI, which was directed to deposit 25 per cent of the penalty amount within 30 days by the COMPAT, according to an Amarchand press release. The firm briefed senior counsel CA Sundaram."
If you read the above carefully Mr. Sundaraman's name was already on this news piece by LI when they published this on the first instance only. They (as in LI) seem to have added the last line later which is "The firm briefed senior counsel CA Sundaraman", which I don't understand why? (unless C Aryama Sundaram & CA Sundaram are different individuals)
Paying attention to detials/fine print is my forte mate, as thats where the catch is, if you are a fellow lawyer, you would appreciate this :-)
Kian, you may need to vet what your colleagues are writing/publishing here, seriously man. I hope you get the picture on this issue.
It can be AI instead of LI.
And for comments on anirudh's insight on balco, he has just compiled excerpts from judgmnt and nothing really More.
Pls focus on quality news.
Actually I'm writing this on my way to the stadium for todays match!
Srinu serves lovely filter coffee by the way!
Cheers!
But take my word for the coffee which Srinu serves (not at BCCI),