Calcutta: With Board president Jagmohan Dalmiya deciding to seek the Supreme Court's "clarification" on whether predecessor Narayanswami Srinivasan could attend meetings, there's every chance that the AGM won't be held on September 27, as decided upon informally.

First, the Board has to file an "interim application," seeking the Srinivasan-specific clarification. Once accepted, the Supreme Court will have to give time to the immediate past president to respond. Next would come the hearing(s) and, then, the order.

Surely, that can't happen in a jiffy.

Once the Supreme Court part is over, the Board will have to call an emergent working committee meeting to do the work - approving the accounts and the annual report - which ought to have done on Friday, when the Srinivasan issue made Dalmiya adjourn "sine die".

After that, 21 days' notice would be required for the AGM. The notice has to be accompanied with the agenda.

For the record, last year's AGM was held this March.

The day after the adjournment, on Saturday, most of the sources contacted by The Telegraph had their own take on the rather embarrassing development.

Apparently, a "compromise" had, to a large extent, been negotiated, with something for everybody.

Srinivasan, the International Cricket Council chairman, wouldn't be prevented from attending the meeting. But he'd give an "undertaking" that only he'd be responsible if somebody moved court on the conflict of interest bit.

It seems that a person very close to Dalmiya persuaded him not to take that forward. The deal, therefore, became a non-starter.

It's debateable whether it was sound at all, though.

Another source made the point that Srinivasan had been "adamant" on attending the meeting ("I will...") and had Dalmiya exercised the Chair's discretion and rejected Justice (retd) Bellur Narayanswamy Srikrishna's opinion in his predecessor's favour, then an unpleasant situation couldn't have been avoided.

"In that eventuality, the Board's image would have taken one more hit," the source said.

Fact is that the Board's image has, in any case, taken another beating.

Besides, Dalmiya had the chance to show he's still decisive. He let that go.

Perhaps, Dalmiya did so tactically. Or, he simply forgot that, in disputed matters, the Chair's decision is final.

Dalmiya wouldn't have overstepped his jurisdiction had he gone along with the opinion furnished by Justice (retd) Ashok Ganguly, who is a "huge fan" of cricket.

Even the head of the Board's legal cell, Justice (retd) Tarun Chatterjee, gave an opinion which didn't favour Srinivasan.

Dalmiya could have ignored what Srinivasan furnished.

Srinivasan, for his part, had good reasons in standing firm and was looking at the future, too. It wasn't just about one meeting.

There's genuine concern, by the way, among Dalmiya's colleagues in the Board on the "state of his health."

Certainly, there's sympathy for Dalmiya, who is 75, but many need no convincing that he should review things on his own, without a prompt from anybody.

At one time, globally, there was nobody more powerful than Dalmiya.

Meanwhile, there's talk that Justice Srikrishna is the arbitrator in an ongoing case involving the Board and, so, he could have avoided giving his opinion.

Of course, nobody is casting aspersions on Justice Srikrishna, but some have nevertheless raised the issue of "ethics."

The matter in question apparently reached the arbitration stage in 2007, when Srinivasan was the Board's treasurer.

However, nobody in the Board could straightaway give details.

Footnote: Shrewd that he is, Srinivasan spent much of Friday "mingling" with the Board members. Except probably the representatives of a couple of affiliates, the rest had no qualms interacting with him.