About Me

My photo
Lawyer Practising at Supreme Court of India. Court Experience: Criminal, Civil & PIL (related to Property, Tax, Custom & Duties, MVAC, insurance, I.P.R., Copyrights & Trademarks, Partnerships, Labour Disputes, etc.) Socio-Legal: Child Rights, Mid Day Meal Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Women Rights, Against Female Foeticide, P.R.Is, Bonded Labour, Child labour, Child marriage, Domestic violence, Legal Literacy, HIV/AIDS, etc. Worked for Legal Aid/Advise/Awareness/Training/Empowerment/Interventions/Training & Sensitisation.

Contact Me

+91 9971049936, +91 9312079439
Email: adv.kamal.kr.pandey@gmail.com

Monday, March 31, 2008

HC takes up Dalmiya's perjury case against BCCI, Pawar

Kolkata (PTI): The Calcutta High Court on Friday took up a perjury case filed by former BCCI chief Jagmohan Dalmiya against BCCI and its president Sharad Pawar for allegedly producing false documents before the court.
Justice Nadira Patheriya directed that the matter would be heard on April 18.
This comes just two days after Dalmiya, charged with misappropriating Rs 2.90 crore during his tenure, was arrested and immediately released on bail at Mumbai.
The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai Police has also filed an over 5,500-page chargesheet against Dalmiya and two others after investigating the case filed by BCCI.
The perjury case was filed by Dalmiya on July 20, 2007 on the day the High Court had declared that his suspension from the Board was illegal.
The former top boss of Indian cricket had alleged in the perjury case under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code that the Board had submitted false documents before the court.
Apart from the Board and Pawar, the perjury case was filed against Niranjan Shah, Shashank Manohar and Chirayu Amin -- all top functionaries of the present BCCI management.
Dalmiya's lawyer Arindam Banerjee alleged that the Board had placed forged documents before the High Court regarding condonation of time of application for the registration of an amendment to BCCI's Clause V of Rule 38, which relates to punitive action against a member of the Board.
He claimed the Board had wrongly claimed to have got permission from the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration body to register the amendment at a later date.
THE HINDU; Friday, March 28, 2008

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment