The Delhi high court reserved its order in a Public Interest Litigation by former Union Minister N K P Salve and former cricketers Kapil Dev and Madan Lal on the contract row between Indian cricketers and the International Cricket Council before the February 2003 World Cup in South Africa.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice B C Patel and Justice A K Sikri, while reserving the order, asked all the parties, including the ICC, Board of Control for Cricket in India and sponsors, to file their affidavits on the maintainability of the petition within a week.

The high court had, on January 22, ordered that no foreign exchange be released to the ICC if the apex cricket body debars India from playing in the championship or imposes any penalty or damages on players or the BCCI.

However, the Supreme Court, on January 31, allowed the sponsors, including LG Electronics India (LGEI) and Hero Honda, to remit foreign exchange for the tournament, subject to the final outcome of the litigation.

At the very outset of the proceedings, the court asked the petitioners' counsel, Seema Bengani, if the petition could still be entertained as the Indian team was allowed to participate in the World Cup.

Bengani sought to enlarge the scope of the petition, saying the purpose was not just to ensure participation of the Indian team in the World Cup; rather, a larger issue concerning the game was involved.

Pointing that the January 22 order of the court was made conditional on "any punitive action being taken against the players or the BCCI", Bengani told the Bench that ICC is withholding nine million dollars due to the BCCI.

However, ICC counsel D Krishnan asserted that the high court did not have jurisdiction in the case as it related to a contract between the ICC and BCCI which was signed in England, and which clearly provides that any dispute whatsoever between the parties would be subject to jurisdiction of English courts.

LG counsel Gopal Jain vehemently opposed Bengani's plea on the grounds that the World Cup was already over and the whole dispute was contractual in nature for which remedies are available in the contract (between the ICC and BCCI) itself.

They accused the BCCI of fighting a proxy war through the PIL, an allegation denied by BCCI counsel Kapil Sibal, who wanted the court to hear and decide the petition on merits.

The court also asked why the players are not coming forward in the matter.

In their PIL, former BCCI president Salve, former Punjab Governor S S Ray, Kapil Dev and Madan Lal and two others had alleged that the ICC had imposed "strict and unreasonable" conditions in its contract for Indian players despite the fact that about 82 per cent of its sponsorship funds were generated in the country.

The conditions had been imposed by the BCCI at the behest of the sponsors of the World Cup which had commercial rivalry with the sponsors of individual Indian players, they alleged.