BCCI v. Kochi Tuskers: Franchise Secures Win in Decade-Long Battle

On June 17, 2025, the Bombay High Court upheld two arbitral awards of over Rs 538 crores in favour of the owners of the now-defunct IPL team Kochi Tuskers Kerala, dismissing the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.[1]

In this case, an auction for expanding the initial eight franchises for the IPL was held in 2010, and Rendezvous Sports World (RSW) won the bid for an IPL franchise to be based in Kochi. But the team, backed by a consortium led by RSW and later operated by Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL), played only the 2011 season. 

While the franchise agreement between BCCI and RSW was entered into in April 2010, pending the incorporation of the joint venture company KCPL, the agreement between BCCI and KCPL was executed in March 2011. In September 2011, BCCI terminated both agreements, citing failure to furnish a fresh bank guarantee for the 2012 season, and encashed the earlier guarantee.

KCPL and RSW initiated arbitration in 2012. The tribunal ruled in their favour in 2015, awarding Rs 384 crore to KCPL for loss of profits and expenses, and ordering BCCI to refund Rs 153 crore to RSW. BCCI challenged the awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The awards were stayed in 2018, with the BCCI directed to deposit partial sums.

The June 17 decision of the Bombay High Court is summarised below:

• Limited Jurisdiction: The Court reaffirmed that under Section 34, it could not revisit the findings of facts arrived at by the tribunal after the appreciation of evidence and documents on record or interfere with the award on the ground that the terms of the contract were not correctly interpreted.
• Finding on Waiver: It found no fault with the arbitrator’s finding that BCCI, by its conduct, had waived the requirement to furnish the bank guarantee by March 22, 2011. BCCI was estopped from asserting otherwise after acquiescing to deadline extensions.
• Repudiatory Breach by BCCI: The arbitrator’s conclusion that BCCI had wrongfully invoked the bank guarantee which constituted a repudiatory breach was based on a sound appreciation of evidence and warranted no interference.
• Clause 21.15 Argument Rejected: BCCI’s reliance on this clause (linking KCPL’s liability to RSW’s obligations) was rejected, as there was no breach of the earlier RSW agreement, and all dues for 2011 had been paid.
• Damages and Methodology:
  • Mixed Claims Permissible: The Court rejected the argument that the damages on account of loss of profits as well as wasted expenditure could not be cumulatively granted.
  • Typographical Clarification: As to BCCI’s contention that the arbitrator observed it would meet the ends of justice to award 25% of the franchise fee for two years, the Court held that the reference to 25% was a typographical error and upheld the 50% award as consistent with the arbitrator’s intended relief.
  • Methodology Accepted: The arbitrator’s use of the ‘rough and ready’ method for computing damages was upheld as it was within its power to mould the relief.
  • Expert Evidence Not Binding: The arbitrator was not bound by the expert evidence and had validly opted for an alternative basis.
• RSW’s Standing: The Court rejected objections under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and held RSW’s reference to arbitration as valid.

Ultimately, the Court found no patent illegality in either award and dismissed both petitions. It extended the existing stay for two weeks and permitted KCPL and RSW to withdraw the deposited amounts after six weeks.

[1] Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited (Arbitration Petition No.1752 of 2015) and Board of Control for Cricket in India v. M/s. Rendezvour Sports World & Ors. (Arbitration Petition No.1753 of 2015).