JUDGMENT (PER M.S.KARNIK, J.) :

1. The appellant - Jupicos Entertainment Private Limited (“Jupicos” for short) challenges the order dated 16th April 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in arbitration petition filed by Jupicos under the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the said Act” for short). The said arbitration petition was filed in respect of disputes and differences that arose between Jupicos and the respondent No.2 - Mumbai Cricket Association (“MCA” for short) concerning an agreement dated 9th March 2018 (“participation agreement”) read with a joint supplementary agreement dated 12th April 2019 (“supplementary agreement”).

2. Jupicos prayed for the following ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :-

“(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceedings or at any time after making of the Arbitral Award but before it is enforced in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Hon’ble Court by its order and temporary injunction be pleased to restrain the Respondents from conducting any further editions of the said League by excluding participation of the Petitioner and its team ‘Shivaji Park Lions’.”

3. The learned Single Judge for the following reasons rejected the ad-interim relief:-

“21. Having heard learned counsels, I am unable to grant the Petitioner ad interim relief since,

(a) I find there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner in approaching this Court. The Termination Notice is dated 24th January 2020 and the present Petition has been filed only on 28th March 2025, after over 5 years from the date of the Termination Notice.

(b) Also and crucially, the Petitioner never challenged the Termination Notice, nor has the Petitioner addressed a single communication disputing the termination; (ii) the Petitioner, despite the defect cure notice dated 22nd November 2019, admittedly did not cure the same during the time given, and (iii) all communication by MCA, the basis on which it was contended that MCA had waived the termination, was

addressed between 28 January 2021 and 9 September 2023, which was prior to the unilateral payment made by the Petitioner on 16th January 2024. Hence, the contention that the MCA had waived the breach by addressing correspondence, etc., to the Petitioner is prima facie plainly untenable.

(c) I also find no merit in the contention that the Termination Notice dated 24th January 2020 was not ratified by the MCA. Firstly, the Termination Notice itself expressly records that the same was issued under instructions and with the approval of the MCA, and secondly, clause 1(g) of the supp Agreement, upon which reliance has been placed by the Petitioner vested the sole power to terminate both agreements with Respondent No. 1. Thus, the Petitioners contention that the termination lacked approval of the MCA is plainly untenable.

(d) Also, I am of the prima facie view that clause 4.2 of the Participation Agreement only grants the Petitioner the right to operate a team in the League and nothing more. The Participation Agreement does not confer any ownership or exclusive right to the Petitioner in respect of the said Territory. Hence, in my prima facie view, the Participation Agreement is only a conducting agreement and does not confer any proprietary rights on the Petitioner over the said Territory.

Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, ad interim reliefs as prayed for are rejected. I must add that the observations made are prima facie and only for the purpose of considering ad interim reliefs. All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.”

4. The facts in brief are as under :-

MCA conceptualized a local cricket league within Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane in February 2018 titled the T20 Mumbai League. Bids were invited in February 2018 to secure the rights to operate a team to participate in first 5 editions of the League. A