N Srinivasan moves SC, accuses BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur of perjury
N Srinivasan yesterday moved the Supreme Court accusing the BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur of committing an offence of perjury before the top court for making "plethora" of "misleading" statements against him
New Delhi: N Srinivasan yesterday moved the Supreme Court accusing the BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur of committing an offence of perjury before the top court for making "plethora" of "misleading" statements against him including that he had "barged" into a meeting of the cricket board's working committee in Kolkata on August 28.
Anurag Thakur and N Srinivasan
Srinivasan, who was barred by the apex court from officiating at the helm of affairs of BCCI in the wake of conflict of interest issue arising for owing an IPL team, said the Board in the application filed by it seeking clarification whether he can attend the meetings of the BCCI, Thakur has filed a false affidavit relating to the August 28 meeting which was adjourned sine die.
The former BCCI President has sought action under Sections 193 (punishment for false evidence) and 209 (dishonestly making false claim in court) of the IPC against Thakur, for his affidavit in which he has also referred to the issue of conflict of interest by mentioning the contents of of the India Cements Shareholders Trust including that Srinivasan was the trustee.
He claimed the BCCI secretary has also made wrong statement in the affidavit about the amendment to the Rule 6.2.4, which was struck down by the apex court judgement on January 22 this year.
"The averments in the false (BCCI) application can then only be personal to Anurag Thakur, who has abused the process of this court by filing his personal false affidavit in the garb of an affidavit on behalf of the BCCI," said Srinivasan while referring to the statement in which alleged conflict of interest was cited against him for being the trustee in India Cements Shareholders Trust that owns IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings.
Srinivasan claimed that as he was sitting in the meeting and the then President had arrived 30 minutes late and the meeting adjourned sine die without any discussion. Therefore it would be wrong to suggest that he had barged into the meeting.