HCA cannot take any financial decisions: HC interim direction
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of Telangana High Court has instructed the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) 'not to take any administrative or policy decisions involving financial matters except for payment of salaries to its employees and other day-to-day expenses of the Association'.
The interim direction was passed in a writ petition filed by the Telangana Cricket Association, levelling serious allegations against HCA, accusing its office bearers of indulging in corruption. The petitioner's counsel contended that the present HCA's managing committee misused its powers in spending association funds. He also maintained that the HCA president was disqualified from contesting elections while the treasurer was under the scanner for alleged misappropriation of funds.
He also stated that the Enforcement Directorate had already attached immovable property worth ₹51.29 lakh under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in a case of misappropriation of funds by the HCA. Observing that the issues raised in the plea 'required to be adjudicated at the time of final hearing', the judge passed the interim order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
28 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC stays Calcutta High Court's suo motu contempt proceedings against police officials
New Delhi, June 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court today stayed the Calcutta High Court's order initiating suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against several West Bengal police officials in connection with the alleged assault on lawyers at the Howrah District Court complex in April 2019. A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by the implicated police personnel and a connected plea by the State of West Bengal challenging the maintainability of the High Court's suo motu contempt action after a five-year delay. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for the petitioners, questioned the legality of the High Court's decision, arguing that under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a one-year limitation applies even to suo motu contempt proceedings. He relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Maheshwar Peri v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (2016), which held that the limitation period applies uniformly, whether contempt is brought to court by a private party or taken up on the court's own motion. ' The apex court, after hearing preliminary submissions, issued notice and ordered that a notice be issued, returnable in six weeks. "In the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to the order dated May 2, 2025, shall remain stayed," the judges said. The case pertains to the incident of April 24, 2019, when lawyers at the Howrah District Sadar Court were allegedly assaulted by police personnel who reportedly entered the court premises without authorisation. Following public outcry, the Calcutta High Court took suo motu cognisance of the incident and, in May 2019, appointed former judge Justice K. J. Sengupta as a one-man commission to conduct an inquiry. However, the High Court revived the matter only recently, based on the findings of the Sengupta Commission. In its May 2, 2025 order, the High Court proceeded to initiate contempt action against the concerned police officials. The petitioners argued that the contempt proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the Calcutta High Court, in its order, took a different view. It stated, 'The bar of limitation as in Section 20 of the 1971 Act, according to us, is in respect of proceedings initiated by individuals bringing to the notice of the Court an act of contempt. The whole object of such limitation is to ensure diligence on the part of the complainant. But the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, where the Court itself initiates suo motu proceedings, cannot be curtailed by Section 20, particularly in view of the Court's inherent powers.' Despite this interpretation by the High Court, the Supreme Court has now intervened and stayed the operation of the May 2 order, pending further consideration. The case will be heard next after six weeks. UNI SNG SSP
New Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
SC stops Centre, IAF from releasing woman officer denied permanent commission
NEW DELHI: Coming to the aid of an Indian Air Force woman officer denied permanent commission, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Centre and the IAF not to release her from service until further hearing on August 6. A two-judge vacation bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan, referred to its earlier order dated May 22, in which similar directions were issued to the Centre and the IAF. The top court passed the order after hearing a plea filed by wing commander Niketa Pandey and said same directions would apply in the case of wing commander Kavita Bhati. Stressing that without prejudice to the rights of the parties or equity in favour of the officer, the bench of the top court posted the hearing further to August 6 before a regular bench, when a batch of petitions related to the IAF would be taken up for hearing. The petitioner, Pandey -- who was part of the Operation Balakot and Operation Sindoor -- claimed that she was denied permanent commission. "I am unfairly treated and discriminated on the issue of being granted permanent commission," Pandey further alleged.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
₹2,700 crore bank fraud case: Supreme Court denies interim bail to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham
In a major setback for former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant him interim bail in a money laundering case related to a ₹ 2,700 crore bank fraud. On 7 April, a three-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna also denied bail to Dham and directed him to surrender at the jail the following morning. 'We aren't at all impressed by the tactics of the petitioner. Your SLP (special leave petition) was dismissed by a three-judge bench of this court. Now you are trying to get in during this vacation and trying to get the same relief in a matter which has already been dismissed,' a SC bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale said on Monday. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Dham, said his client had been in jail for 11 months and that his regular bail plea had been pending in the Delhi High Court since February 2025. He then withdrew the plea. 'We don't understand the appearance of senior counsel in vacations. This court has often commented on that,' the apex court said. The Delhi High Court had extended his interim bail on medical grounds till 7 April. Recently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) provisionally attached fresh assets worth over ₹ 550 crore of Amtek Group firms, an insolvent automotive equipment manufacturing company, in the alleged ₹ 2,700 crore bank loan fraud case under the anti-money-laundering law. Dham was arrested by the ED in July last year and was chargesheeted in September. The ED said in a statement that action was taken against Amtek Auto Limited, ARG Limited, ACIL Limited, Metalyst Forging Limited, Castex Technologies Limited, and Amtek Group promoter Arvind Dham, among others. In September last year, properties worth ₹ 5,115.31 crore were attached by the agency in the case. The ED started its probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on 27 February 2024, following the directions of the Supreme Court.
