The Bombay High Court dismisses BCCI’s challenge to arbitration awards, directs it to pay over Rs 538 crore to the defunct Kochi IPL franchise over wrongful termination of agreements.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed two petitions filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), challenging arbitration awards that directed it to pay over Rs 538 crore to the now-defunct IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala.
The judgment comes as a major setback for the cricket board, which has been contesting the award for nearly a decade.
Justice RI Chagla, while pronouncing the verdict, said there was no patent illegality in the 2015 arbitration order that warranted interference from the High Court. However, the court granted BCCI two more weeks to appeal against the ruling.
The court noted that the awards had been under conditional stay for several years and extended the time to allow the Kochi Tuskers to initiate recovery of the awarded amount.
The case dates back to disputes arising from franchise agreements that Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL) and Rendezvous Sports World (RSW) had entered into with the BCCI. RSW had won the bid for the Kochi IPL franchise in 2010, submitting a bank guarantee of Rs 153.34 crore.
While an interim franchise agreement was signed in April 2010, it was later transferred to KCPL in November that year following the creation of the joint venture.
Disputes began after KCPL allegedly failed to deliver the requisite bank guarantee by March 2011. BCCI subsequently terminated the franchise agreements with KCPL and RSW on September 19, 2011. In response, the Kochi franchise owners invoked arbitration in 2012.
In June 2015, the arbitrator directed BCCI to pay KCPL Rs 385.5 crore along with 18 percent annual interest. In RSW’s case, BCCI was ordered to pay Rs 153.34 crore with similar interest terms, beginning from the date of the alleged wrongful termination of the agreement.
BCCI, represented by senior advocate Rafiq Dada, argued that the arbitrator had overlooked key clauses related to deadlines for submission of guarantees and changes to contract terms. However, the High Court said the arbitrator had correctly interpreted the evidence and contractual terms.
