07 May 2025 Arbitration Law >> Business & Commercial Law  

The Bombay High Court has upheld the Single Judge's decision to deny interim relief to Jupicos Entertainment Private Limited ("Jupicos"), which challenged the termination of its participation in the T20 Mumbai League. Jupicos, owner of the "Shivaji Park Lions" team, had filed an arbitration petition seeking to restrain the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) and Probability Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd. from conducting further editions of the league without its team.

The core of the dispute revolves around a participation agreement from March 2018 and a supplementary agreement from April 2019, under which Jupicos operated its team for the first two editions of the league (2018 and 2019). Probability Sports terminated Jupicos's rights on January 24, 2020, citing defaults in participation fees and failure to deposit TDS amounts.

Jupicos argued that the termination notice was never truly acted upon, pointing to subsequent communications and meetings with MCA where it was still treated as a team owner. They claimed to have cleared all outstanding dues by January 2024 and requested revocation of the termination. However, Jupicos was excluded from league-related meetings starting in April 2024, leading them to file the arbitration petition in March 2025, just before new team auctions were announced.

The High Court, agreeing with the Single Judge, found several reasons to dismiss Jupicos's appeal:

• Inordinate Delay: Jupicos filed its petition over five years after the termination notice was issued, despite being aware of its exclusion since April 2024.
• Waiver of Termination: The court found no prima facie evidence that MCA had waived the termination. Jupicos's own requests in January and February 2024 to "cancel" or "revoke" the termination notice indicated its understanding that the termination was indeed in effect.
• Nature of Agreement: The court leaned towards the view that the participation agreement was merely a "conducting agreement" granting Jupicos the right to operate a team, not conferring ownership or exclusive rights over a territory. It was also noted that Probability Sports had the sole right to terminate the agreements, with MCA only being a confirming party to the supplementary agreement.
• Contractual Dispute: The dispute was deemed contractual, and the court found no arbitrariness or perversity in the Single Judge's decision to deny interim relief.
• Alternative Remedy: Jupicos has already invoked the arbitration clause, and the remedy of claiming damages for illegal termination remains available.

The court concluded that the Single Judge's exercise of discretion was not arbitrary, capricious, or perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act - 1996  

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996