Latest news with #KCPL-FA
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 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.
Indian Express
14 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'.
The Hindu
16 hours ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court dismisses BCCI's petition against Kochi Tuskers
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.
