Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 16th June - 22nd June 2025

High Courts Bombay High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against BCCI, Directs Payment Of ₹538.9 Crore To Defunct IPL Franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala Case Title: Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Anr. Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2015 and ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1753 OF 2015 The Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award granting damages amounting to 538.9 crore to Kochi Cricket Private Limited ("KCPL”), the parent company of defunct IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala. It was held that the Court cannot act as a Court of First Appeal and delve into a fact-finding exercise by revisiting and re-appreciating the record and accepting competing interpretations of the various clauses of the agreements between the parties by invoking the ground of perversity. The bench of Justice Riyaz Iqbal Chagla observed that the Arbitrator adjudicated the core issue, i.e., whether Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”) has wrongfully invoked the bank guarantee furnished by Rendezvous Sports World (“RSW”) and whether this amounted to a repudiatory breach of KCPL's Franchise Agreement (“KCPL-FA”), by considering the material facts and documents on record as well as the evidence recorded. Calcutta High Court Once Arbitration Commences After Failure Of Conciliation Under MSME Act, It Cannot Be Reinitiated By Halting Arbitration: Calcutta High Court Case Title: The Board of Major Port Authority for the Syama Prasad Mukherjee Port, Kolkata Vs. Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited Case Number: A.P.-COM No.296 of 2024 (Old No. A.P. 179 of 2023) The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that once arbitral proceedings commenced under Section 18(3) under the MSME Act, the process could not be reversed to reinitiate pre-arbitral conciliation. The Council did not do so either. It was only at the petitioner's request that additional avenues for mutual settlement were explored alongside the arbitration. Upon the failure of these efforts, the Council proceeded to decide the matter on merits. The court noted that the timeline stipulated under Section 29A of the 1996 Act are not applicable to an arbitral proceeding under the 2006 Act. Rather, the period stipulated under Section 18(5) of the 2006 Act is the relevant guiding factor. However, the latter period is directory and not mandatory. It further observed that unlike Section 29A(1) of the 1996 Act, Section 18(5) of the 2006 Act prescribes a 90-day timeline for arbitral proceedings without imposing a penalty for delay or terminating the Council's mandate, indicating the provision is directory, not mandatory. Injunction Can't Be Granted In Absence Of Any Risk Of Assets Dissipating Or Pleadings Indicating Frustration Of Award: Calcutta High Court Case Title:SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED VS TRINITY ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED Case Number: AP-COM/1049/2024 IA GA-COM 1 of 2025 GA-COM 2 of 2025 The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that at this stage, the petitioner is adequately secured under the schedule to the deeds of hypothecation agreement. The respondent remains fully operational and continues its business activities. There is nothing in the pleadings to suggest that the respondent has attempted to remove or alienate its assets in a manner that would render any future award in favour of the petitioner unenforceable or illusory. The court noted that the petitioner's claim of Rs. 53.61 crores being due is unsupported by any admission from the respondent. While the petitioner valued certain investments at Rs. 12.41 crores, additional investments disclosed in this proceeding were valued at Rs. 41.04 crores. It further observed that although the petitioner disputes these valuations, no concrete calculations have been provided to disprove them. Further examination would amount to a mini-trial, and investment values are subject to market fluctuations. The charge on these investments was created consciously between experienced commercial entities, with no evidence of malafide conduct by the respondent. Arbitrator Can't Be Impleaded In Application U/S 36(2) Of A&C Act Unless Prima Facie Case Of Fraud Or Corruption Is Established: Calcutta HC Case Title:WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. TATA MOTORS LIMITED Case Number: AP-COM/88/2024 IA No. GA No. 1 of 2025 The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that when an application under Section 36(2) seeking unconditional stay of the award on the ground of fraud or corruption is pending adjudication, the question of impleading the person who delivered the award does not arise at such a premature stage. Unless the court, upon examining the application, arrives at a prima facie finding that the award was indeed procured by fraud or ...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 16th June - 22nd June 2025

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags