Bombay HC Allows MCA To Hold T20 Mumbai League Without Shivaji Park Lions, Cites Jupicos' Delayed Arbitration
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently permitted the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) to go ahead with the T20 Mumbai League without including the team Shivaji Park Lions, whose contract was terminated in 2020 due to alleged payment defaults.
The T20 Mumbai League was launched in February 2018 to promote local cricket talent across Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, and Thane. Jupicos Entertainment Pvt Ltd, which owned Shivaji Park Lions, participated in two editions until 2019. A participation agreement dated March 9, 2018, gave Jupicos the right to operate the team for the first five editions. However, citing payment defaults, Probability Sports (India) Pvt Ltd terminated the agreement in 2020.
Jupicos challenged this decision in an arbitration petition against MCA, Probability Sports, and others. It appealed an April 2025 order by a single judge that denied interim relief.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik dismissed the appeal, stating, “Knowing fully well that MCA excluded Jupicos from participating in the meetings since April 2024, the arbitration petition seeking interim measures was filed as late as on 28 March 2025 on the eve of the auction. This belated approach is another factor, as rightly held by the learned single judge, to deny the discretionary relief in favour of Jupicos.”
Jupicos had cleared all dues in January 2024 and sought revocation of the termination. It invoked the arbitration clause in May 2024, after being excluded from league meetings. However, the court held this delay was significant and noted that “the disputes are in the realm of contractual ones.”
“Mere participation in meetings after 2021 does not indicate the termination was not acted upon,” the bench noted. “The conduct of Jupicos in requesting Probability Sports to withdraw the termination notice after it cleared its outstanding in January 2024 is indicative of the fact that the termination notice was acted upon, and this was to the knowledge of Jupicos.”
Rejecting claims of arbitrary or discriminatory treatment, the court held the single judge’s order was not “arbitrary, capricious, or perverse to warrant interference.”
news