Bombay High Court dismisses BCCI's petition against Kochi Tuskers

The Hindu

a day ago

In a major setback to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the Bombay High Court has upheld arbitral awards, directing BCCI to pay ₹385.50 crore to Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL) and ₹153.34 crore to Rendezvous Sports World (RSW) in connection with the Kochi IPL (Indian Premier League) franchise. A detailed order was made available on June 17, 2025 in the evening.
Kochi Tuskers had participated in the 2011 season of IPL but was terminated by the BCCI the following year after allegations of breach of the franchise agreement.
A Single-Bench judge, Justice Riyaz I. Chagla, rejected BCCI's challenge to the arbitral awards, ruling that the Court could not sit and act as an appellate authority over the arbitrator's findings.
In a 107-page order, Justice Chagla observed, '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 order further said that it is not open for this Court to revisit the findings of facts arrived at by the Arbitral Tribunal after the appreciation of evidence and documents on record or to interfere with the award on the ground that the terms of the contract were not correctly interpreted by the learned Arbitrator.
'The conclusion of the learned Arbitrator namely that BCCI had wrongfully invoked the bank guarantee which amounted to a repudiatory breach of the KCPL-FA would call for no interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act considering that this is based on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record,' the court noted.
On September 19, 2011, BCCI terminated its franchise agreements with RSW and KCPL over their failure to deliver the requisite bank guarantees on or before March 22 and 27, 2011, contemplated under the agreements, after both invoked arbitration clauses.
On January 18, 2012, KCPL addressed a letter to BCCI, alleging that the termination of the KCPL agreement by BCCI was wrongful and invoked arbitration under the dispute resolution clause of the KCPL agreement.
In KCPL arbitration, the learned arbitrator passed an award on June 22, 2015, dismissing BCCI's counter-claim, and directing BCCI to pay to KCPL ₹384,83,71,842 with interest on the said amount at 18% from September 19, 2011, till the date of the award. The order further directed BCCI to pay ₹72,00,000 by way of arbitration costs with further interest at 18% on the awarded amount from the date of award to the date of its realisation.
In RSW arbitration, the learned arbitrator passed an award on the same date, and directed the cricket controlling body to pay RSW an amount of ₹1,53,34,00,000 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
Kochi Tuskers set for big compensation from BCCI
BCCI challenged the KCPL and RSW award on September 16, 2015, and filed an arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Bombay High Court. BCCI argued that arguing that the tribunal had acted beyond its powers and misapplied the law. It also contended that KCPL's failure to submit the bank guarantee was a fundamental breach of the agreement, justifying termination. BCCI objected to the award of both loss of profits and wasted expenditure, arguing that the damages were excessive and exceeded the contractual cap and challenged the validity of RSW's arbitration claim under the Indian Partnership Act.
KCPL and RSW contended that the BCCI had waived the guaranteed deadline through its conduct, and the termination was neither justified nor proportionate. They maintained that the arbitrator had applied settled legal principles to award damages for a lost business opportunity and investment already made.
Has BCCI 'located' the money Tuskers owes us, asks Hodge
Finding no grounds to interfere with the arbitral findings, the court noted, 'Thus, based on these material facts and documents on record, the finding of the learned Arbitrator that BCCI waived the requirement under Clause 8.4 of the KCPL-FA for furnishment of bank guarantee for 2012 season on or before 22nd March, 2011 cannot be faulted.'
'There is no patent illegality in the impugned awards which requires interference by this Court. In view thereof, the Arbitration petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed,' the court said, permitting KCPL and RSW to withdraw the amounts deposited and granted BCCI six weeks' time to file an appeal.