BCCI Wins Appeal Against DC Arbitration Award
The BCCI has won its appeal against the Indian Premier League’s Deccan Chargers’ Arbitration Award (IPL).
— kajal (@Chilltweet3) June 16, 2021
Terminate The Franchise Deal
The lawsuit stems from the BCCI’s decision in September 2012 to terminate the franchise deal with Deccan Chargers Holding Ltd, which was contested in the Bombay High Court by the Hyderabad squad.
Case Lone Arbitrator
The court subsequently named retired justice CK Thakkar as the case’s lone arbitrator. Last July, an arbitrator ruled in favor of the now-defunct IPL club, awarding Rs 4800 crore.
“It is a major relief for the BCCI. The Arbitration Award was very huge, close to Rs 5000 crore. We are thankful to the honourable court,” said a BCCI office-bearer
“The Arbitration Award was unsustainable. The franchise had not performed its duties and sought compensation. The award could not have been sustained,” the BCCI counsel said.
Ruling The INR. 4814.67 Crore Compensation
The Bombay High Court’s single bench, led by Justice Gautam Patel, overturned Retd Justice CK Thakkar’s award, ruling that the INR. 4814.67 crore compensation for the non-existent Hyderabad team was unconstitutional.
Cancelling Deccan Chargers 10 year Franchise Agreement
The conflict erupted after the BCCI, led by N Srinivasan, cancelled Deccan Chargers’ 10-year franchise agreement after five years and gave the Hyderabad franchise to Sun TV. Deccan Chargers, one of the IPL’s eight founding clubs, disputed the termination.
“At the broadest level, there were three defaults – not paying players and others, creating charges on assets and the insolvency event (the IFCI winding up petition).
“The contract (between the BCCI and the franchise) said the first two were curable, if uncured they invited termination. The third could immediately trigger termination (leaving aside the fact that the BCCI gave time to DCHL to have this resolved as well). Not one of the three is convincingly shown to have been cured or not to exist. All three continued,” the 176-page judgement said and went on to point out that the arbitrator’s award ignored evidence.
“It granted relief not even prayed for, and took views that were not possible, i.e. that no reasonable person could have done. Effectively it rewarded the party in questionable breach of its contractual obligation. That is inconceivable and not even possible view,” Justice Patel said