New Delhi:Lalit Modi's lawyers on Tuesday pressed for the inclusion of a retired Supreme Court judge and recusal of Chirayu Amin and Arun Jaitely from the BCCI's disciplinary panel, probing into the alleged financial irregularities of the suspended IPL Chairman.
At the second hearing of the disciplinary committee, Modi's lawyers again debated the on the recusal issue.
"The core issue of recusal of two members from the panel was debated. Our lawyers argued the case. The BCCI will be allowed to come out with a rejoinder," Modi's counsel Mehmood Abdi told reporters after the hearing which lasted close to three-and-a-half hours.
Abdi said that next meeting of the committee will be held on August 1 in New Delhi at 7:00pm.
"The meeting has been scheduled for a Sunday considering that the Parliament session is going on and taking into account the convenience of the lawyers," Abdi said.
At the meeting the Modi lawyers sought a number of documents from the BCCI related to the IPL and the Board's meetings.
Abdi said the issue of recusal will hopefully be sorted out at the next meeting.
"A retired Supreme Court judge must be there in the committee. We have grave concern about the BCCI's stance. If they have already decided then what's the point in all their meetings? Whosoever is doing this is hurting BCCI's cause more," Abdi had said before going into the meeting.
Modi again skipped the disciplinary committee meeting but Abdi was also of the view that his client's absence would not affect the proceedings.
"In the last meeting we had given reason to the BCCI about his (Modi) absence and the Board has accepted that. We feel, his absence won't affect the proceedings because I am here to represent him. It will be decided if he can come later depending on the situation," Abdi said.
The three-member disciplinary panel, comprising Amin, Jaitley and Jyotiraditya Scindia, last met on July 16 and allowed Modi to be represented by his lawyers.
The exception was made after Modi's second counsel Venkatesh Dhond explained that the charges against the administrator were of a serious nature and complex legal issues were involved, particularly in relation to interpretation of contract documents.