Chandrachud, pulled up the BCCI for trying to mislead the court and warned Mr Thakur that he may be sent to jail if the court pronounces its order in perjury proceedings.The court’s reply was sharp. Where was the occasion to raise the issue once we had pronounced on this? This amounts to perjury.The bench said: “Why are you trying to mislead the court? If you want to escape perjury charges, you ought to apologise. Ratnakar Shetty, was also pulled up. Everyone wants to go around and continue to hold the post even after 70 years. Khanwilkar and D. At every stage you have been trying to obstruct.Mr Thakur had in his affidavit Wholesale Faucet for kitchen Manufacturers in the court denied asking International Cricket Council chief Shashank Manohar for a letter to the effect that some of the Justice R..The BCCI’s general manager (game development), Prof. “Prima facie it seems that Anurag Thakur has perjured and lied under oath because of the letter to Manohar. On its own, the court put forward the name of former India cricketer Mohinder Amarnath as one of the three.M..S.

This is such a lucrative business that everyone wants to go on forever.The Lodha recommendations, not yet fully accepted by the BCCI, include one-state one-vote, an age limit of 70 years and a cooling-off period of three years between board posts and appointments.The court reminded the BCCI’s top brass that Mr Thakur, as board president, had sought a letter from ICC CEO Dave Richardson that the appointment of a CAG nominee in the cricket body would compromise its autonomy and amount to government interference. suspension from the ICC,” Mr Thakur had said.New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday threatened to initiate contempt and perjury proceedings against BCCI president Anurag Thakur for asking the ICC CEO for a letter but denying it on oath, warning that he may have to go to jail if found guilty.K.M. Thakur, and Justices A.”The final order on Mr Thakur’s misdemeanour, that could send him to jail, could come on January 3 when the court returns after the winter break.Y. It is a case of prosecution,” Chief Justice T.

Thakur said at the hearing. Pillai, whose name had been suggested by the Lodha Committee, and reserved orders on replacing ineligible members of the BCCI administration with a panel of administrators.S.. “You had no occasion to approach Manohar.”According to Mr Thakur, he had asked ICC chairman Shashank Manohar for his opinion on the Lodha recommendations when he was BCCI president.The three-member bench also asked the BCCI to suggest three names for the post of administrator after the board rejected former Union home secretary G. “I pointed out to the chairman of the ICC, Mr Shashank Manohar, that when he was BCCI president he had taken a view that the recommendation of the Justice Lodha Committee appointing a nominee of the CAG on the apex council would amount to governmental interference, and might invoke.The bench, comprising Chief Justice T. Lodha Committee’s recommendations, particularly on having a representative of the CAG’s office on the BCCI’s executive, was tantamount to “government interference in its operations”