M/S. Ashoka Travels v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India

Telangana HC2 Jan 2024WP/21612/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench disposed of a Writ Petition seeking payment of Rs. 8,95,391 owed by the Hyderabad Cricket Association to the petitioner transport operator. It directed payment within two weeks, noting election disputes in the Association, and dismissed the incidental application for interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs. 8,95,391 plus interest within two weeks from receipt of the order.

M/S. Ashoka Travels Vs The Board of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:21612 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Ashoka Travels, Office at opposite Majestic Vistas, Near Pillar No.213, Hyderguda, Upperpally, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad Rep. by its Managing Partner Khurshid Ali

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Board of Control for Cricket in lndia, 4th Floor, Cricket Centre Wankhede Qladlym^{D Road,ChurchgateMumbai-400020, lndia Rep. by its Secretary} 2 The Hyderabad Cricket Association, Registered office at Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order, direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not paying the admitted due amount of Rs.8,95,3911as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the admitted due amount of Rs.8,95,391/- together with interest to the petitioner.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to pay the admitted due amount of Rs.8,95,391/together with interest to the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. RAVINDER

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S. ABAI KUMAR SAGAR, SC FOR BCCI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI B. ARJUN RAO, SC FOR HYOERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.2161 2 of 2023

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The petitioner states that it is engaged in the business of passenger road transport and it operates Volvo buses/Mini Vans and Luxurious cars on hire basis in and around Hyderabad since more than two decades. The case of the petitioner is that it is the successful tenderer pursuant to tender notification issued by respondent No.2 inviting tenders from the reputed Transport Agencies for transport arrangements for Players & Ofhcials in connection with l"r ODI Match between INDIA and NtrW ZtrALAND scheduled on 18.01.2023 at Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad, and accordingly, it has been issued work order No.HCA/ODI/W.O/Ashoka/2022-23 dated Og.Or.2023 by respondent No.2 for providing specialised vehicles for transport of players, officials etc. from l5.O I .2023 to 19.O1 .2023. It is the further case of the petitioner that even though the said contract concluded on ).9.O1.2023, the respondents are not paying the admitted amounts in terms of the work order, which constrained the petitioner to submit several *=

¶24

representations/ le tte rs/ emails to rcspondent No.2.

¶25

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite receiving the said letters/ representations/ emails, so far the respondents have not released the admitted amounts payable to the petitioner in terms of the work order.

¶27

Ms. Nishita, learned counsel representing respondent No.2/ Hyderabad Cricket Association, submits that in view of the disputes inter se Members of the Association, there were no authorised office bearers to release the amounts by way of issuing cheques; recently as per the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, elections were conducted to the Managing Committee of respondent No.2/Hyderabad Cricket Association; and since the newly elected body assumed charge, if sufficient time is^granted by this Court, they will release the admitted amounts^{payable to} the petitioner, after verification of the records.

¶28

In view of the said submission, the writ petition^is disposed of directing the respondents to release the^admitted amounts payable to the^petitioner in terms of^{the work order} No.HCA/ ODI/ w.O/Ashoka/ 2022-23 dated^{09.0t .2023,within a} period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a^{copy of this} order.

¶29

¶30

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶31

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR

To,

SECTlOI\TOFFICER

1 . The secretary, The Board of c_ontror for cricket in rndia, 4th Froor, cricket
Centre Wankhede Stadium D Road, Cfruicngab N,i;rOrl qOOOiii, f riir''
2. The chieJ Executive officer, The HloerioJo-citi"i'esJocatt.,, negiii"reo
3. gffice_f One CC Rajiv_Gandhi tnternarionat to SRI CH. RAVINDER. Advocaie bricreGtiOium, iopl tr]i' Uppur, - Hvtjri'diJ'"'""
4
5. 9n" gg to sRt s. ABA| KUjUAR ^sneAn,-sc ron-'BCC| [Opuc]
9ffg.C^9 to SRr B. ARJUN RAo, SC ior riyoeraoid 6ii"kei Rr.oii"tion
IoPUCI
6.. Two CD Copies
B N

G JP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210112024

1tr E STA te
,<br>c
oo:, 2 3 iAl'l 202[ .L
t Dgs pal gPli
<br>

¶42

ORDER

¶43

WP.No.21612 ot 2023

¶44

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

M/S. Ashoka Travels v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Ashoka Travels v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. S.K.G. Parvathi Vs The State of Telangana

J. Kalyan Kumar Vs Smt. J. Gayathri

Mekala Shashanka Vs The State of Telangana

Banothu Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society (Tics) Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Vorem Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana