Supreme Court Dismisses Jupicos Plea, Allows MCA To Proceed With T20 Mumbai League Without Shivaji Park Lions

Mumbai: The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea filed by Jupicos Entertainment Pvt Ltd, effectively allowing the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) to go ahead with the upcoming edition of the T20 Mumbai League without including the Shivaji Park Lions team.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, on May 21, upheld the Bombay High Court’s May 7 order, which had permitted the MCA to conduct the league without Jupicos’ participation. The top court said, “We find no good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned order.”

The dispute stems from the termination of Jupicos’ contract in 2020 by Probability Sports (India) Pvt Ltd, which manages the league, citing alleged payment defaults. Jupicos, which owned the Shivaji Park Lions, had entered into a five-year participation agreement in March 2018 but was removed after participating in two editions of the tournament.

Jupicos moved the Supreme Court after both a single judge and a division bench of the Bombay High Court rejected its plea for interim relief. The HC division bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik, noted that the arbitration petition was filed belatedly—on March 28, 2025—just before the league’s auction, despite the company being excluded from meetings since April 2024.

“This belated approach is another factor, as rightly held by the learned single judge, to deny the discretionary relief in favour of Jupicos,” the High Court had observed.

Although the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s findings, it did offer a clarification on the limited scope of observations made under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

“It is not for the Court dealing with a petition under Section 9… to decide as to what should be the scope and extent of the claim to be put forth in the course of the arbitration,” the bench said. “To that extent, the observation in paragraph 20 of the impugned order shall have no bearing or binding effect on the arbitration proceedings, as and when initiated.”

Jupicos had claimed to have cleared all dues in January 2024 and sought the revocation of the termination. It invoked the arbitration clause only in May 2024, which the court viewed as a delayed response. The High Court also noted that Jupicos’ conduct—such as seeking withdrawal of the termination only after clearing dues—showed it had accepted the termination.

Rejecting allegations of arbitrariness, the court held that the order of the single judge was not “arbitrary, capricious, or perverse to warrant interference.”

news