The International Cricket Council (ICC) on Wednesday reserved its judgement in the cricket dispute between India and Pakistan.
Former BCCI president and current ICC chairman Shashank Manohar’s deposition marked the end of the three-day Dispute Resolution Forum hearing into the Pakistan Cricket Board’s (PCB) compensation claims against India.
Media reports said the committee has kept its orders reserved as there have only been oral submissions from both parties. There will be written submissions and after that the panel will write the order, reports added.
The Pakistan Cricket Board claimed Rs 447 crore compensation following allegations that the BCCI didn’t honour a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that required India to play six bilateral series between 2015 to 2023.
Former Indian external affairs minister Salman Khurshid was Tuesday cross-examined, during which he justified India’s refusal to play bilateral cricket with Pakistan.
For Pakistan, former PCB chairman Najam Sethi appeared as a witness before the ICC’s Dispute Resolution Committee and presented his arguments. The PCB is being represented by Khwaja Ahmad Hosain, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, Alexandros Panayides of Clifford Chance, London, Lawyers from Clifford Chance, London.
The BCCI is being represented by Dubai-based law firm Herbert Smith Freehills along with British Lawyer QC Ian Mills. BCCI’s own battery of Indian lawyers are also present at the case.
The PCB’s contention has been that the MoU signed in 2014 by erstwhile BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel is binding. The MoU stated that the two neighbours were supposed to play six series in eight years between 2015-2023.
Four of those series was supposed to be hosted by Pakistan that included 24 matches across three formats. The six tours would have constituted 56 games which included 14 Tests, 30 ODIs and 12 T20 Internationals.
However, the BCCI maintained that the contract is no longer legally binding as the PCB didn’t support BCCI’s ‘Big Three’ revenue sharing model where India, Australia and England would have got bigger share of the profit pie.
