Indian National Football Club And ... vs Delhi Soccer Association And Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 105 Del

ORDER

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

IA No. 14896/2007

1. Plaintiff No. 1 is a Football Club and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are the players registered with plaintiff No. 1 in terms of the Rules of Delhi Soccer Association. Defendant No. 1 is Delhi Soccer Association and defendant No. 2 is its Secretary. Plaintiff No. 1 has filed this suit alleging therein that its two registered players viz plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 have been wrongly banned by defendant No. 1 from playing on behalf of the Club despite the fact that defendants No. 2 and 3 were duly registered as per rules as the professional players of plaintiff No. 1 with defendant No. 1. A prayer is made that the defendant No. 1 be injuncted from banning plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 from playing football for plaintiff No. 1.

2. The instant application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been moved by the plaintiffs for grant of ad-interim injunction. The reply to the application has been filed by the defendants.

3. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are that Hindustan Football Club (for short ?HFC?) made a complaint to defendant No. 1 that plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 had entered into a written agreement with HFC in May 2007 and they assured that they shall get themselves registered with defendant No. 1 as players of HFC. They also received Rs. 20,000/- each as an advance but despite receiving this advance, they failed to get themselves registered with HFC.

4. On this complaint of HFC, defendant No. 1 issued show cause notice to the plaintiffs as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 for violating the regulations of All India Football Federation (AIFF). In this show cause notice, it is stated that the players executed an agreement/undertaking for HFC on 17th May 2007 on a stamp paper and also received an advance of Rs. 20,000/- and despite receiving advance, they had not taken transfer in favor of HFC. Both the players i.e. plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, replied to this show cause notice. They admitted having executed the undertaking/agreement and receipt of Rs. 20,000/- each as an advance. Plaintiff No. 3 took the stand that HFC had, at the time of signing of the agreement, promised to pay his last year arrears/dues of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- as further advance for this year before Delhi Inter-club (local transfer) but the same was not paid despite his several reminders. Since the last year dues and the amount was not paid, he lost confidence and did not take transfer in favor of HFC and took transfer in favor of plaintiff No. 1. He also raised question if defendant No. 1 could entertain such a dispute and could defendant No. 2 take action against HFC for not paying his last year's dues or issue a show cause notice to HFC for clearing the dues of players and whether the defendant No. 1 was competent to punish the clubs and officials for exploiting the players. Defendant No. 2 also replied to the show cause notice.

5. It is stated by plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 has no say in the disputes between players and club. The role of defendant No. 1 was to register the players in terms of its constitution. Once the player is duly registered with defendant No. 1 for a club, defendant No. 1 cannot obstruct the players from playing for that club. The action of defendant No. 1 in not allowing plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 for plaintiff No. 1 was illegal and had no authority of law.

6. In reply to this application, it is stated by defendant No. 1 that the present suit has been filed for permanent injunction while it should be for mandatory injunction. It is stated by defendant No. 1 that the admitted position was that the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 had signed the agreement for HFC during May 2007 and undertook playing for this club for the Season 2007-08 but did not register themselves with defendant No. 1 for HFC, in violation of the said agreement despite the advance having been received by the players.

7. Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 both are professional players who play for financial considerations. It has not been denied that both the players were registered for the present season as players of plaintiff No. 1 in accordance with Rule 30 of the Constitution of defendant No. 1 Association, but it is stated that this registration has to be viewed conjointly with the agreement signed by plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 with HFC. It is also admitted that defendant Association has no jurisdiction to compel the players to take transfer to any particular club. It is stated that since it was brought to the notice of defendant No. 1 Association that plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 had signed a contract with HFC, defendant Association sought expulsion of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3. Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 admitted that they signed the agreement in the interest of the game and in the interest of Football Association. Therefore, the players were restrained from playing further matches for plaintiff No. 1. It is averred that defendant Association was duty bound to take decisions on such like complaints and to ascertain facts. It is argued that no irreparable loss was going to be caused to the plaintiffs since the plaintiff No. 1 has already engaged services of alternative players namely Mr. Duidang and Mr. Bengkok on the basis of loan and they are playing regularly in place of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3. The defendant Association followed the principles of justice, fair play and forwarded the reply to show cause notice to the complainant club viz HFC and after exchange of correspondence between parties when it found that there was a breach of contract it took the decision that players in breach of contract would not be allowed to play for other football club.

8. A perusal of document would show that plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 did sign an undertaking/agreement with HFC. In the agreement it is stated by the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 that in case plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 do not play on behalf of HFC, the club management of HFC would be free to take any action against the players and they could demand Rs. 55,000/- with interest of 18% from player on his failure to contract/play for HFC. Thus, the agreement itself provided the remedy in case of failure of player to play for the club. The remedy available to the club (HFC) is to claim Rs. 55,000/- from the individual player.

9. The question which arises is whether defendant No. 1 under its constitution could take an action of restraining a registered player for playing for the club. The facts show that after giving an undertaking on 17th May, 2007 in favor HFC, the players i.e. plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 got themselves registered in June/July 2007 for plaintiff No. 1 and started playing for plaintiff No. 1. A professional player can play for one club only and that also after he gets registered himself with defendant No. 1 as player of that club. In terms of Article 29 of the Rules and Regulations of the Delhi Soccer Club, the registration of a player is done on an application made by the player and he has to make this application in person in the Association's office. After a player is registered as the player of a club, he can get himself transferred for another club only once in the playing season. The registration or transfer of a player is done only once in a year and application for transfer cannot be made before 1st March in any year. The rule also provides that a player if once applies for transfer to another club, he cannot withdraw for any reasons whatsoever, and he can be allowed to play only for one club during the season. It is thus clear that under the rules framed by Defendant No. 1 i.e. Delhi Soccer Association, a player is at liberty to play for any club he wants. The only condition put by Delhi Soccer Association is that he has to get himself registered with the Soccer Association. A player may be offered a contract by one club on certain remuneration/playing fees on one day and if may get another better offer from another club on second day. So long as he has not got himself registered with the Delhi Soccer Association as a player of a particular club for the season, he is at liberty to choose the club which offers him best remuneration and there can be no restraint on the player that he cannot choose the best club for himself. In the present case, it seems that first HFC approached the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and gave an advance of Rs. 20,000/- each and got an undertaking signed. Later on plaintiff No. 1 seems to have been offered better terms to plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and they opted to play for plaintiff No. 1 and got themselves registered as players of plaintiff No. 1. In terms of the agreement, HFC could have asked Rs. 55,000/- with 18% interest from plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, in case of their refusal to get themselves registered for HFC. HFC cannot take the stand that since it had paid Rs. 20,000/- each in advance to plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 cannot now play for any other football club.

10. I, therefore, consider that plaintiffs have a good prima facie case.

11. The next question which arises is that whether defendant No. 1 could initiate action against plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 on the basis of complaint of HFC.

A perusal of rules and regulations would show that the rules and regulations do not provide any mechanism for settlement of disputes between the players and the club. The disciplinary action which Delhi Soccer Association, Defendant No. 1, can take against the player is in respect of violation of rules and regulations of Delhi Soccer Association or of Indian Football Federation. There is no authority with Delhi Soccer Association to take action against the players in respect of the disputes between players and club. Article 31, which deals with misconduct and penalties reads under under:

ARTICLE: 31-MISCONDUCT PENALTIES AND PROTESTS:

In case of any Competition, Club, Official, Member or Player being proved to the satisfaction of the Managing Committee to have been guilty of any breach of the laws of game or of the rules of the Association or any misconduct, the Managing Committee may order the offending Competition, Club, Official, Member or Player to be suspended for such period as it may deem fit or to be dealt with otherwise as the Managing Committee may think fit. No suspended Official or Player of any Club shall be eligible for membership of any other Club affiliated to the Association. Should the Managing Committee decide that a charge or allegation made against a competition, Club, Official, Member or Player concerned shall be investigated, he shall be furnished with a copy of such charge or allegation and when the charge or allegation is investigated into he shall have the right to attend the Board to which the Managing Committee may delegate the duty of conducting such investigation.

12. Moreover, action can be taken against the player under the above Article after a charge is levied and in an inquiry into the allegations is held and player is given a right to attend the Board to which the powers for investigation are delegated. In the instant case, defendant No. 1 has merely relied upon the correspondence between HFC and the players and the replies filed by HFC and players and on the basis of correspondences has banned plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 from playing the league matches. The procedure followed by defendant No. 1 is unwarranted and not provided in the rules, neither supported by its own constitution. The procedure is neither just and fair and does not comply with the principles of natural justice. It is not the case of defendant No. 1 in reply that it can entertain disputes between players and clubs or can compel the players to register themselves with another club from whom it has received the money or it can compel a player to get registration transferred. Despite the fact that defendant No. 1 has no role in such like disputes, it is contended that defendant No. 1 has taken action merely because a complaint was made to it that the player has received advance and refused to play for the club and refused to get himself registered as player of the club. The remedy was available to the club under the agreement itself of demanding money with penalty and interest. Defendant No. 1 could not have taken action against the players i.e. plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and restrained them from playing for plaintiff No. 1.

13. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the plaintiffs has a good case for grant of interim injunction. This application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is allowed. The defendants are restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 from playing for plaintiff No. 1 till disposal of the suit.

14. The application stands disposed of.