Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The Court has set aside the Majority Award dated 13 July 2020 because it failed to consider material evidence that was crucial to the dispute, particularly the benefit received by BCCI from the Agreements entered into in 2009, which resulted in a significant increase in License Fee for the India Rights for 2009-2017. The omission of this benefit was viewed as a fundamental error that affected the validity of the rescission decision (!) (!) .

2. The Court observed that the Majority Award did not address or mention the benefit of Rs. 1791 crores that BCCI gained through the 2009 Agreements, despite this being a vital fact that went to the root of the matter and was specifically raised in post-hearing submissions (!) (!) .

3. The Court highlighted that the Agreements of 2009, including the DMAT, enabled BCCI to re-license the India Rights for 2009-2017 at a higher fee, and this benefit was retained by BCCI. The failure to consider this benefit was deemed a material oversight that compromised the Award's integrity (!) (!) .

4. The Court emphasized that the Arbitrators' findings regarding the purpose and object of the DMAT were contrary to the express terms and the plain language of the agreement. The interpretation given by the Majority Award was found to be perverse and not sustainable (!) (!) .

5. It was noted that the Majority Award did not consider the evidence from MSM’s Press Note, which provided an explanation for the transactions and the facilitation fee. Ignoring this document was seen as a significant omission that affected the assessment of fraud and the validity of the rescission (!) (!) .

6. The Court found that the Majority Award failed to properly analyze the knowledge and approval of the relevant Agreements at the governing body level, specifically the IPL Governing Council meeting held on 11 August 2009. This omission impacted the validity of the ratification and the overall findings related to the alleged fraud (!) (!) .

7. The Court pointed out inconsistencies between the findings of the Majority and Minority Awards regarding whether the Agreements entered into in 2009 were available at the relevant meetings and whether they were properly ratified. The Majority Award’s conclusion that there was no record of these Agreements being available was thus challenged (!) (!) .

8. The Court also noted that the evidence regarding the knowledge and involvement of key individuals, including IMG and Lalit Modi, was not properly considered or was misinterpreted, leading to flawed conclusions about the parties' awareness of the transactions (!) (!) (!) .

9. The Court held that the Arbitrators' failure to consider material evidence, such as the MSM Press Note and the benefit of Rs. 1791 crores, resulted in a perverse and patently illegal Award, which could not stand in law (!) (!) .

10. The order included a direction that if either party chooses to initiate fresh arbitration or proceedings, the period during which the arbitration was pending should be excluded from the limitation period for initiating such proceedings, in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions (!) .

In summary, the Court's decision to set aside the Award was grounded on the Arbitrators' failure to consider key evidence and material facts that directly impacted the legality and validity of the rescission and the underlying agreements, rendering the Award patently illegal and perverse.