Bombay High Court orders BCCI to pay INR 539 crore as compensation to former IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala

‌The Board of Control for Cricket in India received a setback when the Bombay High Court ordered it to pay INR 539 crores as compensation to former Indian Premier League franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala. The ruling comes on the back of a long-drawn legal battle between both parties after the latter was suspended from IPL after one season in 2011.

The Kochi franchise, which is jointly owned by Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL) and Rendezvous Sports World (RSW), in their only appearance in the IPL finished eighth in the 10-team table with 12 points from 14 matches. However, the BCCI had terminated the franchise from taking further part in the league citing breaches in providing a bank guarantee by the stipulated deadline.

With the Tuskers moving with legal proceedings against the decision of the apex body, the court-appointed arbitrator had made the ruling in Kochi’s favour ordering the BCCI to pay compensation in 2015. With the cricket body going for an appeal against the decision in the Bombay High Court, the Court has upheld the arbitrator’s award. Now the BCCI will be required to pay INR 385.50 crores to KCPL and INR 153.34 to RSW with the option of going for an appeal against the order within six weeks.

"The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is very limited," Justice Riyaz I. Chagla said in his order rejecting the BCCI's challenge of the arbitrator's award. "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 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."