Published: Feb 03, 2015, 09:18 PM (IST)
Edited: Feb 03, 2015, 09:18 PM (IST)
New Delhi: Delhi High Court stayed its order restraining former India cricket team manager and DDCA Secretary Sunil Dev from acting as a director of the sports body for allegedly violating Companies Act by receiving remuneration for rendering his services.
A bench of justice B D Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva also issued notice to DDCA and its officials Hari Krishan and Rajinder Kumar seeking their responses on Dev’s appeal. The court also questioned DDCA why it did not take action against its other members, including its Vice President Chetan Chauhan, for receiving similar remuneration. “Notice is issued to the respondents (Krishan, Kumar and DDCA). Meanwhile, order of the single judge (of January 30, 2015) is stayed,” the court said, adding that replies be filed before March five.
Giving relief to Dev, the court said “we find it is a targeted approach. Chetan Chauhan was also not eligible…. Why are you (respondents here) not proceeding against him? You are selectively going against one person, why are you not going against others who have been violating the same Act? In these circumstances you cannot injunct one person (Dev),” it said.
The order came on Dev’s petition challenging the single judge’s decision restraining him from acting as a DDCA director till April 29, 2015. The single judge had prima-facie found that Dev had intentionally violated the Articles of Association of DDCA and the Companies Act by accepting honoraria from it for four consecutive years — 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, sums of Rs 1,40,000, Rs 1,90,000, Rs 3,00,000 and Rs 3,00,000 respectively.
The lawyer appearing for 66-year-old Dev said the order passed by the single judge, “interferes with the rights of the appellant (Dev) which he enjoys in respondent 3 (DDCA), a company duly incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act and a non-profit organization for promotion of game of cricket in and around Delhi. The appellant (Dev) has admittedly not received any honorarium or remuneration, over and above the remuneration to which he was entitled to,” the lawyer said.
