Delhi High Court Upholds Modified Arbitral Award In Prasar Bharati Cricket Broadcast Dispute With Overseas Marketer

The Delhi High Court has dismissed cross-appeals by Prasar Bharati and Stracon India Ltd, an overseas sports marketing company, upholding a single judge's ruling that only seven days of international cricket were missing under their BCCI broadcast marketing contract, and not seventeen as awarded by the arbitrator.

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain agreed with the Single Judge that the arbitrator had wrongly excluded a 10-day India–Australia–New Zealand Triangular Series while calculating the shortfall.

The bench said the limited interference by the Single Judge was justified and did not call for correction in appeal.

The dispute relates to a February 2000 Global Rights Agreement under which Prasar Bharati granted Stracon overseas marketing rights for BCCI matches until September 2004 for a consideration of USD 43.75 million.

The agreement assured a minimum of 27 days of international cricket per season, totalling 135 days over five seasons. When some India–Pakistan and India–Australia series were not played, Stracon claimed that the guaranteed number of cricketing days had not been delivered.

Before the arbitrator, Prasar Bharati argued that the 135-day commitment had to be reduced because 20 days of international cricket had already been played in October 1999, before the agreement was signed, and because the contract began mid-season.

Stracon claimed a 17-day shortfall. It argued that the India–Australia–New Zealand Triangular Series could not be counted as it was not part of the original schedule and did not qualify as a “series” under its reading of the agreement. The arbitrator accepted this view and awarded compensation for 17 days, along with interest.

The Division Bench rejected both sides' challenges. It refused to accept Prasar Bharati's attempt to rely on definitions from its separate agreement with the BCCI.

"Unlike the BCCI Agreement, the Global Rights Agreement did not define the term "Cricket Season". It did not even state that as the Agreement was being executed in the middle of a Cricket Season, there shall be a proportionate reduction of the number of days ofnInternational Cricket for the first season. The definition of Cricket Season from the BCCI Agreement therefore, cannot be imported into the Global Rights Agreement to modify the terms thereof,” the court said.

On the triangular series, the court agreed with the single judge that excluding matches that Stracon had marketed and earned revenue from would distort the contractual framework.

The bench also declined to interfere with the award of 18% interest, noting that Prasar Bharati had itself claimed interest at the same rate. With that, the cross-appeals were dismissed, confirming Prasar Bharati's liability only for the seven-day shortfall.

For Prasar Bharati: Senior Advocate Rajeev Sharma with Advocates Abhishek Birthray and Kartikeya Tripathi.

For Stracon India Ltd.: Senior Advocate Ashish Dholakia with Gautam Bajaj, Subhoday Banerjee, Akash Panwar, Meghna Jandu, and Jasleen Kaur.