Mumbai: The Bombay High Court today reserved order till tomorrow on an appeal filed by the Cricket Board challenging a 'status quo' order passed by an arbitrator in its dispute with debt-ridden Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd.
The arbitrator appointed by the High Court last month, retired Supreme Court Judge C K Thakkar, in his first meeting last week, passed an order directing BCCI not to initiate any action on its decision to terminate the franchise of IPL team Deccan Chargers from Hyderabad.
Aggrieved by this, BCCI approached the High Court which had, on Saturday, granted interim stay on the arbitrator's order, thereby allowing the Cricket Board to take further action on the termination.
Soon after the High Court stayed the status quo order, BCCI issued tenders for IPL teams from various cities, including Hyderabad.
Arguing for BCCI, senior counsel Raju Subramanium said "IPL season 6 is going to commence from April next year. There are several good international players from the Deccan Chargers team who will be left high and dry if they are not included in the auction list," he had submitted before Justice R D Dhanuka who reserved order on BCCI's appeal until tomorrow.
Subramanium said DCHL was given sufficient time to submit the bank guarantee of Rs 100 crore as directed by another judge of the High Court. "Justice Kathawala had kept DCHL and BCCI's interest in mind and asked them to submit bank guarantee if they wanted to participate in the IPL 6 season."
DCHL's failure to submit bank guarantee of Rs 100 crore of a nationalised bank permitted BCCI to initiate action in furtherance to the termination.
Senior counsel S U Kamdar, appearing for DCHL, today told the court that the company, which is in financial difficulty, should be allowed to sell the team. "To help BCCI, the company decided to go out of IPL 6 by selling the team. But the cricket board has a problem with that also," he said.
Meanwhile, Ratnakar Bank today filed an application saying it was ready to submit the bank guarantee on behalf of DCHL. BCCI, however, opposed this saying the High Court order said the guarantee has to be submitted through a nationalised bank.