&w=3840&q=100){kind=logo}
Big blow to BCCI as Kochi Tuskers win Rs 538 crore arbitral award in IPL termination case
The Bombay High Court has upheld a Rs 538 crore arbitral award in favour of Kochi Tuskers Kerala, ruling against the BCCI in the IPL franchise termination case. The court has rejected BCCI's challenge and granted the governing body six weeks to appeal. read more
The Bombay High Court has ruled in favour of the former Indian Premier League (IPL) team Kochi Tuskers Kerala, handing a big blow to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) . The court upheld an arbitral award of over Rs 538 crore in favour of the Kochi franchise, which was terminated by the BCCI back in 2011.
Kochi Tuskers had played just one IPL season in 2011 before being banned by the BCCI due to an alleged breach of the franchise agreement. The BCCI said that Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL), which owned the team, had failed to submit a bank guarantee on time, which was required under the contract.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Also Read: ICC reportedly rejects BCCI's proposal to host WTC final in India
However, Kochi Tuskers argued that there were other issues like stadium permissions and internal clearances, and that BCCI had still accepted payments and continued talks even after the deadline passed. The case went to arbitration in 2012, and in 2015, the tribunal ruled in favour of Kochi Tuskers.
More from First Cricket
It ordered BCCI to pay Rs 384 crore to KCPL and return Rs 153 crore to Rendezvous Sports World (RSW), the group that was originally awarded the franchise. BCCI challenged the decision in court, saying the arbitrator had gone beyond their powers and made legal errors in pronouncing the award.
BCCI dealt with a major blow
But the Bombay High Court has rejected BCCI's arguments. According to Bar and Bench, Justice RI Chagla said that the court cannot re-examine the merits of the dispute under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and that BCCI's dissatisfaction with the findings was not enough to cancel the award.
'The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is very limited. BCCI's endeavour to delve into the merits of the dispute, is in teeth of the scope of the grounds contained in Section 34 of the Act. BCCI's dissatisfaction as to the findings rendered in respect of the evidence and/or the merits cannot be a ground to assail the Award,' the court said.
This ruling is one of the biggest financial setbacks for BCCI in IPL history and brings back attention to how the Kochi Tuskers saga was handled over a decade ago. The court has granted six weeks to the BCCI to file an appeal in the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
34 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Expansion positives factored into the valuations of Hindustan Zinc
The company expects revenues to rise from Rs 34,100 crore in FY25 to Rs 40,000-42,000 crore with phase-I expansion, and further rise to Rs 62,000 to Rs 65,000 crore upon completion of plan Devangshu Datta Listen to This Article The board of Hindustan Zinc Ltd (HZL) has approved a capital expenditure (capex) plan of ₹12,000 crore to be funded through internal accruals and debt to expand zinc smelting capacity by 250 kilo tonnes per annum (KTPA) at Debari in Rajasthan along with a mine capacity expansion of 330 KTPA. At an investor meet held by the company, the management announced that the expansion is expected to be completed in the next 36 months, with capex across FY26-FY28. The guidance is ₹3,500 crore capex in FY26, ₹5,000 crore in FY27, and the remaining in FY28. Of the capex,
Indian Express
39 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Rs 2,434 crore ‘fraud': CBI opposes Jai Corp, Anand Jain's pleas against FIR
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Wednesday opposed the pleas filed by Jai Corporation Ltd and its promoter Anand Jaikumar Jain before the Bombay High Court challenging the FIR registered by the central agency alleging serious financial irregularities by the company and its promoters. The central agency had alleged defrauding of funds to the tune of Rs 2,434 crore from the public investors in real estate projects among other irregularities. A division bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil was hearing pleas by Jai Corp and Jain seeking quashing of the FIR. The CBI, through advocate Kuldeep Patil, sought dismissal of the plea stating that the investigation in the matter was still in progress. The central agency justified its FIR stating that it was initiated based on the HC order of January 31. The CBI on February 12 had constituted a five-member SIT led by its DIG Sarah Sharma to probe the allegations. The HC granted two-week time to file reply to the plea to respondent Shoaib Richie Sequeira, the original complainant who had approached the HC through earlier petition seeking preliminary probe in the matter. The court also granted further two-week time to petitioners to file rejoinder to CBI and Sequeira's reply and posted further hearing after four weeks. The central agency had claimed that Jai Corp Ltd with Jain, its sister concerns, their directors and promoters, one Parag Shantilal Parekh and other unknown private persons have 'committed offences of criminal conspiracy, dishonestly inducing delivery of property, making forged documents for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine the forged documents and thereby caused wrongful gain to themselves.' The Jai Corp and Jain in April filed writ pleas in the HC seeking quashing of the CBI FIR and other interim reliefs, claiming that the action against them was arbitrary. On March 17, the Supreme Court had disposed of the appeal by Jai Corp against Bombay High Court order directing CBI Zonal director to form an SIT to conduct thorough probe into the allegation of fraudulent activities to the tune of Rs 3,000 crore by Jain. On January 31, the Bombay HC bench led by Justice Revati Mohite-Dere had passed a judgment on a plea by 61-year-old Sequeira. The HC had noted that there were 'national and international ramifications in the case.' The HC had also expressed disappointment over conduct of EOW and CBI showing inability to conduct a probe and stressed on the need for fair and efficient probe. The SC appreciated 'courage' shown by HC judges to pass the said verdict. The CBI FIR in question has listed allegations including that 'during May 2006 and June 2008, Jain and his group in their individual capacity and as directors/promoters of Jai Corp. Ltd, in conspiracy with sister companies of Jai Corp. Ltd., floated two entities i.e. Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd. and Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd.' As per the FIR, they 'mobilised funds to the tune of Rs 2,434 crore from the public at large, for the scheme of Urban Infrastructure Opportunities Fund for the purpose of real estate business at Mumbai & other places.' The FIR further stated that 'on June 31, 2006, Indenture of Trust (IOT) was registered by the two entities with Registrar of Assurances, Mumbai as settlor and trustee, to establish a venture capital fund and got it registered with the SEBI.' The disclosure of interest in the IoT allegedly stated that 'no transaction arrangement or investment will be made with another person with whom the director, officer, employee, etc. has some relationship and create conflict of interest'. The central agency said that in contravention of the declaration, the accused persons 'cheated the public at large and diverted funds by way of making investments/giving unsecured loans within the sister concerns.' The CBI further alleged that sister concerns of Jai Corp, over the years, showed the unsecured loans as losses on the basis of false and fabricated documents, so as to justify the constructions/real estate projects. Moreover, these corporate entities too 'executed forged agreements against advance paid for the purchase of benami land to justify the losses.' The CBI, in its FIR dated February 18, 2025, alleged that through criminal conspiracy, Jain, one Parag Shantilal Parekh, and their group diverted part or whole of Rs 2, 434 crore collected from investors by the two entities in 2006-07 to Mauritius and/or Jersey Channel Islands for incorporation of corporate entities at these places so as to divert the money collected from investors and banks. The FIR further stated that part or whole of Rs 3,252 crore availed as loan from Banks in 2006-07 by Navi Mumbai SEZ Pvt Ltd or part or whole of Rs 686 crore availed as loan from banks by the said company in 2003-04 too was diverted to the Mauritius and/or Jersey Channel Islands. The central agency further alleged that Jain, Parekh and their group diverted/laundered Rs 98.83 crore of foreign currency loan availed by Navi Mumbai SEZ Pvt Ltd from banks in 2008-09 to Mauritius and thereafter floated corporate entities to facilitate diversion of loan amount availed in India to abroad. In the end, it was alleged that the parent company of Jain, 'during 2010-17 fraudulently exported goods to Sarbags PTY Ltd, New South Wales, Australia and Assurance Products Corporation, California, USA on the basis of fictitious invoices/documents and thereby diverted the funds for their end utilisation.'
India.com
40 minutes ago
- India.com
England Announces Playing XI For First Test Against India, Batter with 52 Average Dropped
England announced their Playing XI for first Test against India on Wednesday. The first Test will be played at Headingley, Leeds from June 20. Ben Stokes and Co. have retained Ollie Pope at number three for the first Test, dropping Jacob Bethell who did incredibly well for them in the previous tour. Pope Retained, Bethell Misses Out The decision to stick with vice-captain Ollie Pope comes amid questions about his spot in the top order. While Pope showed glimpses of brilliance with a 171 against Zimbabwe, his record against top-tier teams like India and Australia remains concerning. In 18 combined Tests against the two, Pope averages just 22.05, well below his career average of 35.49. Jacob Bethell, 21, was in contention for a place after impressing with three half-centuries in as many Tests against New Zealand last year. He also recently scored 82 in an ODI against West Indies and boasts a healthy average of 52 from his limited Test appearances. However, despite the buzz, he's yet to notch a professional century. Bethell missed the Zimbabwe Test due to IPL duties with Royal Challengers Bengaluru, and while Stokes initially hinted at Bethell's immediate return, he later clarified his comments were about the squad selection being misunderstood. According to Alastair Cook, Bethell opting to play IPL has not went in his favour. Bowling Changes and Stability Elsewhere England have made two changes from the side that played against Zimbabwe. Chris Woakes and Brydon Carse come in for Sam Cook and Gus Atkinson, strengthening the pace attack. The rest of the lineup remains unchanged, with familiar faces like Joe Root, Ben Stokes, Harry Brook, and debutant keeper-batter Jamie Smith all holding their spots. England's XI for the First Test vs India: Zak Crawley, Ben Duckett, Ollie Pope, Joe Root, Harry Brook, Ben Stokes, Jamie Smith, Chris Woakes, Brydon Carse, Josh Tongue, Shoaib Bashir. India Squad for England Test Series: Shubman Gill (captain), Rishabh Pant (wk) (vice-captain), Yashasvi Jaiswal, KL Rahul, Sai Sudharsan, Abhimanyu Easwaran, Karun Nair, Nitish Kumar Reddy, Ravindra Jadeja, Dhruv Jurel (wk), Washington Sundar, Shardul Thakur, Jasprit Bumrah, Mohammed Siraj, Prasidh Krishna, Akash Deep, Arshdeep Singh, Harshit Rana, Kuldeep Yadav
