Justice Mhatre, who heard
the case, allowed the Respondents, which include the RWITC, the Stewards
body including Chairman Dr. Cyrus Poonawalla, the Board of Appeal
and Capt. Jamshed Appoo seven days to seek relief against her order.
At the hearing, the lawyers for the RWITC argued that
the due process was followed and therefore the Club’s decisions, as a
quasi-judicial body, did not fall under the jurisdiction of the High
Court.
Vinayak’s lawyers argued that no due process was
followed and that the charge was amended at each stage to suit the
convenience of the Club. They also argued that based on the sms’s and
recorded conversations between Board of Appeal member Mohit Lalvani and
Poonawalla and Appoo, the entire decision to suspend Vinayak was
malicious as well as biased since it was a contrived decision. Finally,
they argued that under the charge levelled against Vinayak, the question
of vicarious liability could not arise.
Towards the end, after hearing both sides, Justice Mhatre commented that it seemed as if Vinayak was a victim in a battle
between two bigger people and allowed his motion for ad-interim relief
on the grounds that natural justice was not given.
Related
stories:
Head
Lad caught tampering with urine sample on CCTV
New
twist to controversy
Controversies dog RWITC
"Truth will prevail," says Captain Appoo
"I
was told in no uncertain terms that I'd best not go to Vinayak's
appeal."
-Interview with Mohit
