Circumstances surrounding BFI-INBL Agreement "clearly suspicious": Delhi High Court

On May 31, while hearing a petition filed by Basketball Federation of India against the conduct of INBL, single judge Pratibha M Singh of the Delhi High Court made certain pertinent observations.

On May 31, while hearing a petition filed by Basketball Federation of India against the conduct of INBL, single judge Pratibha M Singh of the Delhi High Court has made certain pertinent observations.

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

As reported last month, BFI and INBL are locked in a legal battle. The latter is trying to enforce the ‘Master Rights Agreement’ (MRA) signed between the two, while the former is challenging its validity, and is keen to launch separate pro basketball leagues of its own.

INBL challenged BFI’s decision to start another league and was able to obtain a favourable order in the Karnataka Civil Court on May 28, restraining BFI from opening the new leagues’ tender bids.

Thereafter, BFI filed an application in the Delhi High Court questioning INBL’s decision to approach the Karnataka lower courts, when the Delhi High Court is already seized of the matter.

While broadly agreeing with BFI’s arguments, Delhi High Court Single Judge Pratibha M Singh noted that the license fee under the MRA was not paid to the Basketball Federation of India.

Justice Pratibha Singh stated:

“A sum of Rs.16.5 crores which was the license fee was only handed over as a cheque but was never encashed by the then Management of the Plaintiff Federation, – the reasons for which are unknown. Therefore, the consideration under the Master Rights Agreement has not been paid by the Defendants. The circumstances surrounding the execution of the said Master Rights Agreement are clearly suspicious.”

Justice Singh goes on to conclude that “Prima facie, in the opinion of this Court therefore, the Defendants cannot be seeking to enforce any right under the Master Rights Agreement.”

Justice Singh also ordered the issuance of a show cause notice against INBL CEO Parveen Batish, as to why action for contempt not be taken against him, for overreaching the proceedings before the Delhi High Court by parallely approaching the Karnataka Civil Court.

INBL’s appeal to the divison bench of the Delhi High Court challenging Justice Singh’s orders was met with a lukewarm response, with the court observing on June 7 that there was no “urgency in the matter” and has listed it for hearing on July 2.

***

If you've come this far...

Appeal to readers - ₹₹ Support Ekalavyas: Ekalavyas is India's first and only basketball media company. We are not foreign-funded, nor investor backed. Your support and encouragement have got us this far. We now need your financial assistance to ensure we can keep providing you timely, accurate and important information. Please contribute via https://razorpay.me/@ekalavyas​ 🙏🏾. We are accepting contributions as low as Rs. 1/- (including a small processing fee charged by the payment gateway provider). Thank you for playing a part in keeping media independent and objective!