Supreme Court: In a recent IPL Scandal, the bench of T.S. Thakur and F.M.I. Kalifulla, JJ., gave an order to consider the findings of the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee in the matter and directed the parties to file their responses/objections within four days of the receipt of the extracts of the report.
In the instant order, the Court directed the Registry (Judicial) to furnish the copies of the report of the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee (a committee appointed by the Supreme Court to investigate the fixing and betting scandal in the IPL) to the learned counsel for the parties, for the parties to file their responses/ objections within four days from the receipt of the extract of the report, and to respond to the responses/ objections of the opposite party within four days thereafter. The Court however limited the furnishing of the extracts of the report of the committee to the parties. It directed only to furnish the extracts of the report which concerns the conduct and role of the private individuals, namely Gurunath Meiyappan, Raj Kundra, Sunder Raman and N. Srinivasan, and directed to hold back the report which deals with the roles of the players concerned in the matter.
Further, on the contention of the learned counsel for the parties that except N. Srinivasan none of the persons involved in the matter are parties before this Court, the Court directed that on a formal application made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent, H.N. Salve, the Registry shall issue notice to Gurunath Meiyappan, Raj Kundra and Sunder Raman to implead them as party respondent to this petition. Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of
