BCCI lawyer Aryama Sundaram vehemently argued before a bench of justice AK Patnaik and JS Khehar that they desperately needed the tapes before the hearing on April 16 when the court will continue hearing on plea for action against Srinivasan and Dhoni for their alleged involvement in the bettingfixing and further scrutinise their roles.
"We needed the audio recordings to prepare ourselves before the hearing on April 16. Only then we can satisfy your lordships regarding various aspects raised by opposite parties in the court and also to answer the questions which will be asked by the bench," Sundaram told the bench.
But Justice Patnaik retorted: "We will take up the plea on April 16 and if we feel that you need the tapes for your defence we shall adjourn the hearing by a day or two. At present we are not inclined to entertain the plea."
When BCCI sought the tapes, the lawyer of Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) secretary Aditya Verma submitted that the Board cannot seek copies of the transcripts on behalf of Srinivasan and Dhoni.
"How does the BCCI have the locus standi to ask for the tapes on the behalf of Srinivasan and Dhoni," Verma's lawyer Ajeet Sinha told the court.
He submitted that if the transcripts are supplied to BCCI then those should also be given to the CAB. BCCI had also sought the transcripts of statements by Sundar Raman, the Chief Operating Officer of IPL.
The bench had on the previous date of hearing on March 27 directed Srinivasan to keep away from the affairs of the BCCI till investigations against him was over and appointed former captain Sunil Gavaskar as the working president for IPL.
Former Test player Shivlal Yadav has been asked to look after the other affairs of the Board. It is to be noted that the Mudgal panel which probed into the spot fixing and betting in last year's edition of IPL stated: "MS Dhoni, N Srinivasan and officials of India Cements took the stand that Mr. Meiyappan [son in law of Srinivasan] had nothing to do with the cricketing affairs of the Chennai Super Kings (CSK) and was a mere "cricket enthusiast" supporting CSK."
It is these very comments that the BCCI wanted to verify from the tapes.
The panel which went deep into the malice of fixing and betting issues found that Meiyappan had placed bets, which was an offence as a team official had shared confidential information.
The court had said the panel was right in terming as "serious" the questions being raised on conflict of interest in Srinivasan being the BCCI president and CEO of India Cements when his son-inlaw Meiyappan is under a cloud.
Dhoni's name had cropped up for the first time on March 27.
Senior lawyer Harish Salve who represented petitioner Verma, the petitioner in the case who demanded a probe into the scandal argued that Dhoni was "corrupt" as he indulged in "cover up" and "gave false statement" before the Mudgal committee regarding the role of Meiyappan with the CSK.
Comments
Add new comment