Latest news with #JusticeChagla
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
10 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Bombay HC upholds ₹538 cr Kochi Tuskers arbitral award against BCCI
Bombay HC dismisses BCCI's appeal and upholds arbitral award over wrongful termination of Kochi Tuskers; franchise partners KCPL and RSW to receive ₹538.84 crore New Delhi The Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing the Board of Control for Cricket in India (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. Kochi Tuskers Kerala participated in the 2011 season of the IPL under a consortium led by RSW and operated by KCPL. However, the BCCI terminated the team's contract the following year, citing breach of the franchise agreement. Following the termination, RSW and KCPL initiated arbitration proceedings against the BCCI, alleging wrongful termination of their franchise agreement. On 22 June 2015, the arbitral tribunal awarded KCPL over ₹384.83 crore and RSW ₹153.34 crore, along with interest and costs. The BCCI subsequently approached the Bombay High Court seeking to set aside the tribunal's award. Justice Chagla also held that the court would not interfere with the award even on grounds of an allegedly incorrect interpretation by the arbitrator. 'The learned arbitrator has, in the impugned KCPL and RSW awards, decided the core issue—viz., whether BCCI wrongfully invoked the bank guarantee furnished by RSW and whether this amounted to a repudiatory breach of the KCPL-FA—by considering the material facts, documents on record, and recorded evidence,' the order stated. The order further added: 'The learned arbitrator has also considered whether the non-furnishing of a bank guarantee by KCPL by 22 March 2011 constituted an 'irremediable material breach' of both the KCPL and RSW franchise agreements. The impugned awards conclude that the material on record militated against a finding of irremediable material breach.' The court held that the arbitrator's conclusion—that BCCI had wrongfully invoked the bank guarantee—required no interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This section outlines the grounds and procedures for setting aside an arbitral award in India.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Kochi Tuskers vs BCCI: The IPL dispute that ended in ₹538 crore court blow
Almost 14 years after it brought the Indian Premier League (IPL) to Kerala — only to be terminated a season later — the ghost of Kochi Tuskers Kerala has returned to haunt the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), now with a legal price tag of ₹538 crore. In a significant setback for the BCCI, the Bombay High Court has upheld arbitral awards totalling ₹537.5 crore in favour of the defunct franchise's parent company, Kochi Cricket Private Ltd (KCPL), and its principal stakeholder, Rendezvous Sports World (RSW). Justice RI Chagla, delivering the verdict, dismissed the BCCI's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reinforcing that courts cannot reappreciate evidence or sit in appeal over arbitral findings. 'BCCI's dissatisfaction as to the findings rendered... cannot be a ground to assail the award,' the court said. A team, a tax, a termination The Kochi franchise—one of two teams added during the BCCI's 2010 expansion — was born in controversy and proved to be short-lived. Even before it debuted in the 2011 IPL season, the consortium behind it was fighting battles on multiple fronts: infighting among shareholders, a PR disaster over its proposed name ('Indi Commandos'), and threats of relocation after disputes over Kerala's entertainment tax. Despite a middling on-field performance—six wins in 14 matches—the bigger implosion came off the field. KCPL failed to furnish a mandatory 10 per cent bank guarantee for the 2012 season, citing unresolved shareholding issues and regulatory delays. Still, BCCI continued accepting payments from the franchise well into mid-2011, creating what the court has now interpreted as an implicit waiver of strict compliance. By September 2011, the BCCI had had enough. It terminated the franchise for breach of agreement, citing non-submission of the guarantee. Players were redistributed via auction; unsold ones were paid out of an earlier bank guarantee, which the BCCI unilaterally encashed. Arbitral award, and its confirmation In 2012, KCPL and RSW moved to arbitration, claiming wrongful termination. By 2015, the arbitral tribunal ruled in their favour: ₹384 crore to KCPL for lost future profits and ₹153 crore to RSW for unjustified encashment of the bank guarantee. The BCCI challenged the award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his mandate and erred in awarding both profits lost and wasted expenditure—claims it said were duplicative and contrary to contract law. The Board also invoked provisions of the Indian Partnership Act to question the maintainability of RSW's claim. The High Court disagreed on every count. Justice Chagla found the arbitrator's reasoning 'based on a correct appreciation of the evidence,' and reiterated that the court's role under Section 34 is not to second-guess findings of fact or contractual interpretation, absent a glaring legal error. He further observed that the BCCI, by continuing to engage with the franchise and accept payments post-deadline, had effectively 'waived' strict enforcement of the bank guarantee clause.
Indian Express
15 hours ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Setback for BCCI in Kochi Tuskers case: Bombay HC upholds Rs 538 crore arbitration awards to defunct IPL franchise
The Bombay High Court Tuesday dismissed the Board of Control for Cricket in India's (BCCI) pleas challenging two arbitration awards worth over Rs 538 crore granted in favour of the now-defunct Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala. The dispute arose after the BCCI terminated the franchise in September 2011, citing an alleged breach of the franchise agreement. Kochi Tuskers Kerala took part in only one season of the IPL, in 2011, under a consortium led by Rendezvous Sports World (RSW) and operated by Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL). Aggrieved by the 'wrongful' termination, RSW and KCPL began arbitration proceedings, and on June 22, 2015, the arbitral tribunal awarded over Rs 384.83 crore to KCPL and over Rs 153.34 crore to RSW, along with interest and costs. Upholding the awards, a single-judge bench of Justice Riyaz I Chagla dismissed the two petitions by the BCCI. The petition against KCPL concerned an award related to disputes arising from its franchise agreement with the BCCI, dated March 12, 2011. The challenge to the award in favour of RSW was related to disputes arising from its agreement with the BCCI, dated April 11, 2010. The bench noted that the BCCI, alleging that the awards were perverse, sought the court to venture into fact-finding exercise by revisiting the record and accepting competing interpretations of various clauses of the agreements between the parties. '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,' Justice Chagla noted. '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,' Justice Chagla added. As per the franchise agreement, KCPL was required to furnish a bank guarantee by March 2011, which the firm failed to do. KCPL referred to the non-availability of a brand-new stadium in Kochi, shareholding approvals, and a sudden reduction in the number of IPL matches. The BCCI, through senior advocate Rafique Dada, argued that the tribunal's 'finding that the non-availability of a brand-new stadium at Kochi was a breach on the part of BCCI is ex-facie materially contrary to the terms of governing contracts/documents'. The cricket board also claimed that the tribunal acted 'beyond the terms of contract' and KCPL's failure to provide bank guarantee was a fundamental breach of the franchise agreement. The BCCI alleged that the damages awarded for loss of profits and wasted expenditure were in excess of the agreement. However, senior advocate Vikram Nankani, representing the respondents KCPL and RSW, opposed the BCCI's plea, claiming that the termination was unjustified and disproportionate. Justice Chagla, after perusing submissions, held that the arbitrator's conclusion was supported by records. 'Thus, 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,' the court noted. The high court said there were 'no valid grounds' raised in the two pleas 'to warrant an interference with the KCPL Award and the RSW Award' and there was ' no patent illegality in the impugned awards'.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
BCCI loses ₹538 cr case as Bombay HC upholds Kochi Tuskers arbitration
The Bombay High Court has upheld arbitral awards worth over ₹538 crore in favour of the now-defunct Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise, Kochi Tuskers Kerala. The ruling comes more than a decade after the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) terminated the franchise's contract, citing a breach of agreement, reported Bar and Bench. Delivering the verdict on Tuesday, Justice RI Chagla rejected BCCI's plea challenging the arbitral awards, reaffirming the limited scope of judicial intervention under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The single-judge bench ruled that the court cannot function as an appellate body over the arbitrator's conclusions. '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. What is the dispute? The Kochi Tuskers franchise, originally awarded to a consortium led by Rendezvous Sports World (RSW), was later operated by Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL). The team took part in the 2011 IPL season but was terminated by BCCI in September 2011. The reason: failure to furnish a 10 per cent bank guarantee, allegedly due to internal conflicts among the franchise owners. KCPL, however, maintained that the delay was caused by unresolved matters including stadium issues, regulatory approvals on shareholding, and a sudden reduction in the number of IPL matches. Despite these problems, the BCCI continued to engage with the franchise and even accepted multiple payments, only to cancel the contract later and encash an earlier guarantee submitted by RSW. Arbitration and award In 2012, both KCPL and RSW initiated arbitration proceedings. The tribunal, in 2015, ruled in their favour. It awarded ₹384 crore to KCPL for loss of profits and ₹153 crore to RSW for wrongful encashment of the bank guarantee—together exceeding ₹538 crore, along with interest and legal costs. BCCI had challenged the award, claiming the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and misapplied legal principles. It also argued that KCPL's failure to provide the guarantee was a fundamental breach and that the damages awarded were excessive and went beyond contractual limitations. Additionally, BCCI contested the maintainability of RSW's claim under the Indian Partnership Act. What did the court say in its verdict? KCPL and RSW countered BCCI's claims by stating that the board had, through its continued interactions, effectively waived the guarantee deadline. They insisted that the franchise's termination was both unjustified and disproportionate. They also defended the tribunal's findings, calling them a fair interpretation of the evidence on record. Justice Chagla sided with the franchise. The court made it clear that the arbitrator's conclusion—that the BCCI's action amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract—did not warrant interference. 'The arbitrator's conclusion that the BCCI's termination of the Kochi franchise was a repudiatory breach of contract would call for no interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act,' the court held. "Just because a different view may be possible would not be a ground for interference with the award," it added. The judgment further clarified that the arbitrator rightly found that the BCCI had waived the requirement under Clause 8.4 of the Franchise Agreement regarding the bank guarantee for the 2012 season. '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,' the court added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
07-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Business Standard
HC rules in favour of Karan Johar, bars release of film using his name
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday upheld a March 7, 2025 judgment that refused to lift the stay on the release of the film 'Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar'. The film's release had been halted since June 2024 after the court found that it likely infringed on the personality rights of filmmaker Karan Johar, reported Live Law. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik dismissed the appeal filed by the filmmakers against the earlier ruling by Justice Riyaz Chagla, who had passed the original interim stay on June 13, 2024. That interim stay was later confirmed and made absolute in a detailed ruling on March 7, 2025. A copy of the latest judgment is yet to be made available. In his previous order, Justice Chagla observed that a 'strong prima facie' case had been made by Johar to protect his personality rights, noting his celebrity status based on several blockbuster films he has directed and produced. The court also found that the use of his name in the title of the film appeared to be unauthorised and intended to unfairly profit from Johar's established brand. 'There is no manner of doubt that the plaintiff [Johar] has played a role in transforming the Bollywood film industry and launched careers of several successful actors. I have no doubt that prima facie the subject film is a direct reference to the plaintiff and makes unauthorised use of plaintiff's name,' Justice Chagla noted in his interim ruling. Also Read In his final judgment on March 7, Justice Chagla ruled that the filmmakers had prima facie violated Johar's personality rights, publicity rights, and right to privacy by using his name and associated attributes in the film title. 'The plaintiff [Karan Johar] has been able to establish that by using his brand name the defendants are attempting to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff to earn unjust profits for itself,' the court said while making the interim stay order permanent. The judge also noted that the characters in the film, named 'Karan' and 'Johar', are aspiring film directors in Bollywood — a clear reference to Johar's real-life profession. The use of the term 'director' alongside the name was viewed as a deliberate attempt to create an association with the real-life celebrity. The court found that this kind of portrayal could lead to commercial exploitation of Johar's name, which carries independent economic value. The judge emphasised that Johar alone has the right to commercially benefit from the use of his brand and identity. Background of the case Johar had filed a lawsuit claiming that he had no connection to the film and that the makers were unlawfully using his name in the title. The film is co-produced by IndiaPride Advisory Pvt Ltd and Sanjay Singh, and directed by Bablu Singh. In the lawsuit, Johar alleged that the film infringed upon his personality rights, right to publicity, and right to privacy. His legal team argued that the title Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar directly referred to his name and brand, without any authorisation. They added that Johar's name has gained a distinct identity and secondary meaning due to his widespread recognition in the entertainment industry. As a public figure, he has the legal right to prevent misuse of his identity under intellectual property laws. Johar's team also claimed that promotional material and trailers were causing irreparable harm to his reputation and goodwill, which he has built over decades in the film industry.
