Ms. Nilofer Ghuman vs Delhi And District Cricket Association

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 24.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 27.10.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 29.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC 010315492026
+ W.P.(C) 9908/2026
MS. NILOFER GHUMAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rishikesh Kumar,
Advocate

versus

DELHI AND DISTRICT CRICKET
ASSOCIATION ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Saurabh Chadda with Mr.
Rohit Bhagat and Ms. Aprajita,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court,
praying for grant of following reliefs:
“...a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
Respondent No. 1/DDCA to act upon and give effect to the
sanction/affiliation granted to the Petitioner vide letter dated
25.08.2020 bearing Ref. No. 390/2020 for conducting the
Covid-19 Cricket Series/Willingdon Cup, subject to
compliance of applicable rules and reasonable conditions;
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing Respondent No. 1/DDCA to
W.P.(C) 9908/2026 Page 1 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:29:59

provide to the Petitioner a copy of the applicable BCCI/DDCA
SOPs, guidelines, rules, conditions and procedure governing
State-affiliated/franchise- based T-20 leagues/tournaments,
including those applied for Delhi Premier League or any
similarly placed league;
c. Direct Respondent No. 1/DDCA to process and grant all
appropriate sanctions/permissions required for conducting the
Willingdon Cup/Covid-19 Cricket Series under the
aegis/affiliation of DDCA, in terms of the earlier sanction
granted to the Petitioner;
d. Direct Respondent No. 1/DDCA to consider and confirm
availability of Arun Jaitley Stadium/Feroz Shah Kotla Ground
for the inaugural edition of the Willingdon Cup and/or for such
matches as may be permissible, including semi-finals/finals, on
terms not less favourable than those extended to similarly
placed cricket leagues/tournaments;
e. Direct Respondent No. 1/DDCA to provide access, in
accordance with law and applicable privacy/data-protection
norms, to necessary details/data of DDCA-registered players,
including men and women players, umpires, scorers, referees,
physiotherapists, support staff and other relevant personnel
required for smooth conduct of the Willingdon Cup;
f. Direct Respondent No. 1/DDCA to issue/process NOCs
and/or permissions in respect of DDCA-registered players for
participation in the Willingdon Cup/Covid-19 Cricket Series,
subject to the same conditions as applicable to other similarly
situated DDCAaffiliated/ permitted leagues;
g. Direct Respondent No. 1/DDCA not to act discriminatorily
against the Petitioner and to apply the same SOPs, criteria,
norms and conditions to the Petitioner‟ tournament as have
been applied to Delhi Premier League or any other similarly
placed franchise-based T-20 league/tournament;
h. In the alternative, direct Respondent No. 1/DDCA to refund
the sanction/licence fee of ₹1,00,000/- along with appropriate
interest from the date of deposit, without prejudice to the
Petitioner‟ right to claim damages/compensation before the
appropriate forum;
i. Award costs of the present petition in favour of the Petitioner
and against Respondent No. 1/DDCA...”

W.P.(C) 9908/2026 Page 2 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:29:59

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as set out in the petition,
are that petitioner had proposed to conduct a franchise-based T-20
cricket tournament, initially styled as the “Covid-19 Cricket Series”
and subsequently as the “Willingdon Cup”, for promotion of
cricketing talent in Delhi. The proposal was submitted to respondent
No. 1/Delhi & District Cricket Association ( DDCA ) on 22.07.2020,
pursuant to which certain further particulars were sought by the
DDCA and were furnished by the petitioner. Thereafter, the DDCA
issued a sanction/affiliation letter dated 25.08.2020 bearing Ref. No.
390/2020 in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner
deposited a sum of ₹1,00,000/- towards the sanction/licence fee with
the DDCA in September, 2020. The petitioner contends that, despite
the aforesaid sanction and payment of the requisite fee, the proposed
tournament could not be conducted and the DDCA failed to provide
the requisite SOPs, permissions, stadium availability, player-related
data and NOCs, despite repeated representations and follow-ups,
including a request dated 06.12.2021 for availability of the Arun
Jaitley Stadium. The petitioner further relies upon the subsequent
launch of the “Delhi Premier League” by the DDCA in 2024,
contending that a substantially similar franchise-based T-20
tournament was permitted while its own sanctioned tournament was
not taken forward. A legal notice dated 28.08.2025 was thereafter
issued to the DDCA seeking, inter alia , the requisite permissions and
facilities for conducting the Willingdon Cup. Alleging that no
effective action was taken by the DDCA despite the sanction granted
W.P.(C) 9908/2026 Page 3 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:29:59

in 2020 and the subsequent representations, the petitioner has
approached this Court seeking the reliefs as noticed hereinabove.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.
1/DDCA opposed the present petition and argued that the dispute in
question is purely a civil dispute. De hors the aforesaid objection, the
learned counsel for the DDCA contended that the petitioner had
attempted to mislead this Court and had suppressed several material
facts. He first drew the attention of this Court to the memo of parties
accompanying the petition, wherein only one petitioner, i.e., Ms.
Nilofer Ghuman, had been impleaded. He thereafter pointed out that,
in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the petition, the description of two
petitioners had been provided, i.e., petitioner no. 1, stated to be a
sports management company incorporated in 2016, i.e., D.R. Tigers
Private Limited, and petitioner no. 2, Ms. Nilofer Ghuman, stated to
be the Director of petitioner no. 1. The learned counsel thereafter
contended that the company in question, i.e., D.R. Tigers Pvt. Ltd.,
stood struck off in the year 2022, and yet there was not even a single
averment in this regard in the entire petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the other
hand, submitted that there was a typographical error in this regard,
since, while drafting the petition, reference had initially been made to
petitioner no. 1, D.R. Tigers Pvt. Ltd., but the same was subsequently
corrected and the company was removed as a petitioner. However,
inadvertently, such reference to two „petitioners‟ may have continued
to appear in certain paragraphs of the petition.
W.P.(C) 9908/2026 Page 4 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:29:59

5. The learned counsel for the DDCA, however, pointed out that
even the Board Resolution filed along with the Vakalatnama in the
present petition was forged and fabricated. It was submitted that the
said Board Resolution recorded that it had been passed at a meeting
held on 20.05.2026, whereas the date appearing beneath the
signatures on the said resolution was 10.08.2024. It was further
pointed out that, in any event, since the company, i.e., D.R. Tigers
Pvt. Ltd., had been struck off in the year 2022 itself, neither could
any such Board meeting have been held thereafter, nor could any
such resolution have been passed by the company. It was contended
that, despite being aware of these facts, the learned counsel had
drafted and filed the present petition. In support of his submissions,
the learned counsel for the DDCA also placed on record the status of
the company reflected as “Strike Off” on the official website of the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs, as well as Gazette Notification bearing
no. CG-DL-W-14022022-233388, dated 12.02.2022, and Gazette
Notification bearing no. CG-DL-W-23042022-235331, dated
23.04.2022. It was, thus, argued that the present petition was liable to
be dismissed with exemplary costs.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought
permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file afresh.
However, in view of the material placed before this Court, this Court
was not inclined to accede to the request made on behalf of the
petitioner.
7. Submissions heard and material available on record perused.
W.P.(C) 9908/2026 Page 5 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:29:59

8. In the present case, this Court notes that as regards the status of
petitioner no. 1, D.R. Tigers Pvt. Ltd, the petition describes petitioner
no. 1 as a company incorporated in the year 2016 and primarily refers
to the proposal, stated to have been submitted by the said company,
to the DDCA, the sanction/affiliation granted by the DDCA on
25.08.2020 and the payment of ₹1,00,000/- towards the
sanction/licence fee.
9. However, the documents placed on record by the learned
counsel appearing for the DDCA show that the name of D.R. Tigers
Pvt. Ltd. had already been struck off from the records of the Registrar
of Companies. As per the records of the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs placed before this Court, the company was struck off in the
year 2022. The relevant Gazette Notification bearing no. CG-DL-W-
14022022-233388, dated 12.02.2022, inter alia , records that Notice
was being given to several companies for the purpose of striking off
companies under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, that the
Registrar of Companies had a reasonable cause to believe that such
companies had not been carrying on any business or operation for a
period of two years, which at Serial No. 2326 records the name of
D.R. Tigers Private Limited. The subsequent Gazette Notification
bearing no. CG-DL-W-23042022-235331, dated 23.04.2022, has also
been placed on record, which inter alia pertains to Section 248(5) of
Companies Act. In the said Notification, the name of D.R. Tigers
Private Limited is mentioned as Serial No. 2230. Thus, in terms of
Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, the name of the company in
W.P.(C) 9908/2026 Page 6 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:29:59

question was struck off from the register of companies, which was
published in the Gazette Notification dated 23.04.2022. Furthermore,
the status of the company, on the website of the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs, is also shown as “Strike Off”.
10. Thus, the company had ceased to remain on the records of the
Registrar of Companies much before the present petition was filed.
The petition, however, does not disclose this fact anywhere. There is
no averment setting out that the company was struck off, when it was
struck off, or what was the status of the alleged rights of the company
thereafter.
11. The chronology of events pleaded by the petitioner is also
noteworthy. The petitioner has referred to the events of the years
2020 and 2021, including the submission of proposal, grant of
sanction, etc. The petitioner then refers to the launch of the Delhi
Premier League in the year 2024 and states that one legal notice dated
28.08.2025 was also issued to the DDCA, and the said legal notice,
inter alia, mentions about representations submitted by the petitioner
to the DDCA in the year 2025. The present petition was thereafter
filed in the year 2026. However, even the legal notice dated
28.08.2025, addressed to the DDCA, did not disclose that D.R.
Tigers Pvt. Ltd. had already been struck off from the records of the
Registrar of Companies.
12. It is also pertinent to note that, as admitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner himself, while drafting the petition, he had
W.P.(C) 9908/2026 Page 7 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:29:59

mentioned about two petitioners, i.e. petitioner no. 1 [D.R. Tigers
Private Limited] and petitioner no. 2 [Ms. Nilofer Ghuman], which is
evident from the Synopsis, List of Date and Events, and even
paragraphs 11 and 12 of the petition, but later, he had attempted to
remove the references to the petitioner no. 1 [D.R. Tigers Private
Limited] and had also removed its name from the Memo of Parties.
13. Therefore, it is apparent that the learned counsel had removed
petitioner no. 1, D.R. Tigers Private Limited, from the Memo of
Parties, which, in the circumstances noted above, could have been
done on account of the fact that the company had already been struck
off from the records of the Registrar of Companies, but the same fact
was not disclosed to this Court.
14. There is another crucial, rather shocking , fact which merits
consideration. Along with the writ petition, a Board Resolution dated
20.05.2026, purportedly passed by the company i.e. D.R. Tigers
Private Limited – authorising petitioner Ms. Nilofer Ghuman, being
its Director, to, inter alia , sign, verify, execute and swear the Writ
Petition, etc. for filing the same before this Court, and to engage,
appoint and instruct Advocates including M/s Rishikesh Kumar &
Sheenu Priya, Advocates, to represent the Company before this Court
– has been filed on record. As revealed during the course of
arguments, the said Board Resolution is apparently false and
fabricated, as though it mentions to have been passed in a meeting
held on 20.05.2026, the signatures appearing below the said
resolution bear the date 10.08.2024. Most importantly, the company
W.P.(C) 9908/2026 Page 8 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:29:59

in question had already been struck off from the records of the
Registrar of Companies in the year 2022, as per the documents placed
before this Court; and thus, no such board resolution could otherwise
have been passed.
15. This Court is not, in the present proceedings, required to
undertake any forensic examination of the said document or to record
a finding as to the commission of any criminal offence. However,
these facts cannot be ignored while considering whether the
petitioner had approached this Court with full disclosure of the
relevant facts.
16. When the aforesaid fact was put to learned counsel for the
petitioner, the explanation offered was that it was the petitioner who
was responsible for the said document (board resolution), and that the
counsel had acted upon the instructions received from the client.
17. However, the learned counsel subsequently tendered an
apology and sought permission to withdraw the present petition. He
also assured this Court that greater care would be exercised in future
while drafting and filing pleadings and documents before the Court.
18. In view of the apology tendered and the assurance given by the
learned counsel, this Court does not deem it necessary to examine the
matter any further. It is expected that the learned counsel shall remain
careful in future and ensure that the pleadings and documents filed
before the Court are duly verified.
19. The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
W.P.(C) 9908/2026 Page 9 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:29:59

20. However, it is clarified that this Court has not examined the
petitioner‟s grievance against the respondent, and no opinion is being
expressed on the merits of the case.
21. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.


DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026/zp
TS

W.P.(C) 9908/2026 Page 10 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:29:59