Bombay High Court orders BCCI to pay Rs 538 crore to Kochi Tuskers owners

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday upheld the arbitral awards issued in 2015, directing the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a total of Rs 538.84 crore in compensation following the termination of the Kochi Tuskers Kerala franchise from the Indian Premier League (IPL), as per ESPNcricinfo.

As per the court’s ruling, the BCCI must pay Rs 385.50 crore to Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL) and Rs 153.34 crore to Rendezvous Sports World (RSW), the two stakeholders of the now-defunct franchise. Six weeks of time have been granted to the BCCI to file an appeal.

Kochi Tuskers Kerala competed in just one IPL season, in 2011, finishing eighth out of ten teams. The franchise was terminated by the BCCI in September that year for allegedly breaching contractual terms by failing to furnish a bank guarantee within the specified timeframe. This led to a lengthy legal battle, culminating in arbitration, which ultimately went in favour of KCPL and RSW.

The team, captained by Sri Lanka’s Mahela Jayawardene, registered six wins and eight losses during their sole campaign. The squad featured high-profile players including New Zealand’s Brendon McCullum, legendary Lankan spinner Muttiah Muralitharan, and Indian all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja.

“The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is very limited,” Justice Riyaz I. Chagla said in his order, as quoted from ESPNcricinfo.

“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,” he added.

“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,” he noted. (ANI)