The court limited its review of arbitral awards to issues of process, concluding that the appellant's claims of duress and arbitration irregularities were without merit, validating the awarded damages as per contractual terms.

JUDGMENT :

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)

1. The present Appeal arises out of an order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Hyderabad (‘the Commercial Court’) dismissing the appellant’s application (C.O.P.No.83 of 2016) for setting aside the arbitral Award dated 15.03.2016. The Appeal has been preferred under section 37 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’).

2. M/s.Visaka Industries Limited (‘Visaka’) was the claimant in the arbitration namely, COP No.83 of 2016. The dispute between the parties arose out of the Agreement dated 16.10.2004. The appellant terminated the said Agreement on 16.07.2011 and Visaka invoked the arbitration clause i.e., clause 15(iii) of the Agreement dated 16.10.2004 by way of a Notice dated 08.10.2010.

3. The brief facts forming the background to the arbitral Award and the impugned order are as follows.

Facts:

3.1. Hyderabad Cricket Association (‘HCA’) and Visaka entered into an Agreement dated 16.10.2004 for in-stadia advertisement rights for construction of an International Cricket Stadium at Uppal Kancha, Hyderabad, to conduct domestic and international cricket matches, training and other programmes for the development and popularization of the game of cricket. The Recitals to the Agreement state, inter alia, that Visaka (referred to as ‘the Company’ in the Agreement) paid Rs.6.50 Crores to HCA for the exclusive vesting of the irrevocable right to name the Stadium as ‘Visaka International Cricket Stadium’ in the Company/Visaka and for the advertisement, publicity and display rights granted by HCA to Visaka. While things remained so, HCA claimed that it had received a letter dated 15.03.2008 from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (‘BCCI’) with regard to the proposed DLF-Indian Premier League (‘IPL’) matches to be conducted at the Stadium and also stipulated the terms and conditions towards the conduct of the IPL matches and on 02.04.2008, wrote to Visaka expressing its inability to honour its obligations under the Agreement dated 16.10.2004 by stating that their Agreement is not binding on the BCCI-IPL arrangement.

3.2. On 19.04.2008, Visaka filed an Application under section 9 of the 1996 Act vide O.P.No.689 of 2008 before the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for restraining HCA from denying in-stadia advertisement rights during the IPL matches between 22.04.2008 to 01.06.2008, in violation of the Agreement dated 16.10.2004. By order dated 19.04.2008, the Trial Court granted a temporary injunction. On 08.10.2010, Visaka issued a Notice under section 11 of the 1996 Act to resolve the disputes pertaining to the rights and privileges arising out of the Agreement dated 16.10.2004 nominating Mr.M.R.Vikram as the Arbitrator. The fact that Mr.M.R.Vikram was a partner of M/s. Anandam & Co. was specifically mentioned in the said notice.

3.3. On 07.03.2011, HCA addressed a letter to Visaka stating that as per the License Agreement between the HCA and Visaka, the IPL matches are not included in the aforesaid Agreement. In response, Visaka issued a reply on 14.0