On Tuesday, on Tuesday, the High Court Bombay Bombay on Tuesday confirmed the referee of the CRS 538 in favor of owners of the now defunct Indian Premier League (IPL) Franzzy Kochi Tuskers Keral (BCCI in Kochi Cricket Private).
The judiciary Ri Chagla, as the only judge, dismissed the BCCI call against the arbitration award and ruled that the court could not act as an appeal with the judgment of the arbitrator.
“The jurisdiction of this court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is very limited. The BCCI seeks to immerse itself in the benefits of teeth dispute, which is in section 34 of the Act,” the recognition of the court that is recognized.
At the 2011 IPL season, Kochi Tuskers, which was awarded a consortium under the leadership of Rendezvous Sports World (RSW) and later operated by Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL), took part. In September 2011, however, BCCI ended the franchise, referring to a violation of the franchise agreement – specifically the inability to provide a 10% bank guarantee in the middle of internal disputes among owners.
KCPL claimed that the delay was caused by unresolved problems, including the availability of the stadium, regulatory approval of the share and a sudden reduction in the number of IPL matches. Despite BCCI delay, she continued negotiations with KCPL for several months and received various payments before suddenly ended the franchise and attended the previous RSW guarantee.
The arbitration proceedings were initiated in 2012 by KCPL and RSW, and the court decided in its favor in 2015. He appreciated KCPL for losing profits and RS 153 CRORE for RSW for incorrect closure of the banking warranty, along with interests and legal costs.
The BCCI attacked the prices and claimed that the court had exceeded its jurisdiction and incorrectly used legal principles. It insisted that the KCPL did not provide a bank warranty, which was a major violation, which justified the termination. He also raised objections to both the loss of profits and the wasted expenses, claiming that the damage was excessive and violated the contractual limits.
The BCCI also questioned the validity of the RSW arbitration according to the Indian Partnership Act.
In response to KCPL and RSW, they claimed that the BCCi had effectively gave up the term of the warranty through its behavior and that the termination was unfounded and disproportionate. They argued that the arbitrator’s decision was based on “correct recognition of recorded evidence”.
The court agreed and found no reasons to interfere with the arbitration findings. “The conclusion of the arbitrator that the termination of Kochi BCCI franchise was a rejected violation of the contract would not require any interventions under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act,” the court decided. It stressed that “just because there may be a different perspective, there would be no reason to interfere with the price.”
With this decision of Bombay High Court, he strengthened the finalization of arbitration prices and a limited trial under the Act on Arbitration and Conciliation Activities, which meant a clear judicial confirmation of the arbitrary process in commercial disputes.
“On the basis of these material facts and documents, the finding of a learned arbitrator that BCCI has submitted a request according to the clause 8.4 KCPL-FA for the equipment of the banking guarantee for the 2012 season or earlier, it cannot be caused,” the court said.
Published:
Saurabh Kumar
Published on:
June 18, 2025
