In a massive legal blow for the BCCI, 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 violation of the agreement.

Delivering the judgment, Justice R.I. Chagla, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed BCCI’s objections in the case titled BCCI vs Kochi Cricket Private Limited. The court emphasised that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the scope for judicial interference in arbitral decisions is extremely limited and does not extend to acting as an appellate authority.

Tracing the Dispute’s History


The conflict dates back to September 2011, when BCCI revoked the Kochi franchise’s contract, citing non-compliance with a critical clause requiring a 10% bank guarantee. Initially formed under a consortium led by Rendezvous Sports World (RSW), the franchise was later managed by Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL). Kochi Tuskers Kerala competed in just one IPL season in 2011 before its contract was abruptly annulled.

KCPL, however, countered BCCI’s claims, arguing that delays stemmed from unresolved operational hurdles — including lack of access to stadiums, regulatory concerns regarding shareholding, and a cut in the number of league matches — all of which impeded timely compliance.

Both RSW and KCPL moved to arbitration in 2012, and the tribunal ruled in their favour three years later. KCPL was awarded ₹384 crore for loss of potential earnings, while RSW received ₹153 crore for wrongful invocation of the bank guarantee, together crossing the ₹538 crore mark, excluding legal expenses.

BCCI’s Challenge and the Court’s Response


BCCI contested the tribunal’s decision, contending that it had overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the terms of the original contract. The board argued that KCPL’s failure to provide the bank guarantee constituted a fundamental breach and that awarding damages for lost profits and expenses exceeded what the agreement originally allowed.

Senior advocate Vikram Nankani, appearing for KCPL and RSW, refuted BCCI’s assertions, calling the termination arbitrary.

After reviewing the proceedings, Justice Chagla concluded that the arbitrator’s findings were well-grounded in evidence. He observed that BCCI’s conduct indicated a waiver of the guarantee clause, stating:

“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 the 2012 season on or before 22nd March, 2011, cannot be faulted.”