The Bombay High Court has held that an agreement which is determinable in nature cannot be specifically enforced through interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where the termination has been validly acted upon and not challenged in time.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik observed, “Having considered the relevant clauses of the agreement, it does appear that the contract was determinable by its nature by virtue of the termination clause therein... Therefore, the agreements were determinable by nature and could never be sought to be specifically enforced as is prayed for.”

The Court added, “Jupicos has already invoked the arbitration clause and therefore the remedy of claiming damages in case the termination notice is held to be illegal and bad in law is available.”

Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Amrut Joshi Appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellant was the original petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Appellant entered into a Participation Agreement dated March 9, 2018, and a Supplementary Agreement dated April 12, 2019, with Respondent No.1, which was appointed by the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA), Respondent No.2, to organize the T20 Mumbai League. Under the agreement, the Appellant operated the "Shivaji Park Lions" team for the first two editions of the League.

Disputes arose over unpaid participation and support fees, and defaults in TDS deposits. The Respondent No.1 issued a defect cure notice, followed by a termination notice, alleging non-payment of 35.17 lakhs and TDS default of 68.44 lakhs. The termination was issued with MCA’s approval.

The Appellant did not challenge the termination at that stage but continued to participate in meetings and correspondence through 2021 and 2023. In January 2024, the Appellant paid the outstanding dues and requested revocation of the termination notice. It sent follow-up emails but received no response. In April 2024, the Appellant was excluded from League-related meetings and auctions.

In March 2025, the Appellant filed a petition under Section 9 seeking interim relief to restrain the Respondents from conducting further editions of the League excluding its team.

Reasoning of the Court

The issue before the Court was whether a party to a determinable contract can seek interim injunctive relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to restrain the counter-party from acting on a termination notice that had not been challenged for over five years.

The Court noted that the Participation and Supplementary Agreements gave exclusive termination rights to one party (Probability Sports), and that the Mumbai Cricket Association was only a confirming party. Relying on Clause 1(g) of the Supplementary Agreement, the Court observed that termination was contractually permissible.

The Court further observed, “The conduct of Jupicos in requesting Probability Sports to withdraw the termination notice after it had 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.”

On the enforceability of determinable contracts through Section 9, the Court reiterated settled principles of contract law and interim relief and stated, “The agreements were determinable by nature and therefore could never be sought to be specifically enforced… such contracts are not enforceable through mandatory interim injunctions.”

The Court held that Section 9 of the Arbitration Act cannot be used to override express contractual rights of termination, especially when no proprietary or irrevocable rights were created in the Appellant's favour.

Accordingly, the appeal challenging the denial of interim relief was dismissed.

Cause Title: Jupicos Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Probability Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:7628-DB)
Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha; Advocates Mayur Khandeparkar, Ujjawal Anand Sharma, Kunal Kanungo, Vikramjit Garewal, Prashant Sivarajan, Jai Zaveri, Tushar Saigal, Zainab Burmawala, Atishay Jain

Respondents: Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat; Advocate Amrut Joshi, Devesh Juvekar, Anjali Dhoot, Mithilesh Chalke, Yazad Udwadia, Rashmin Khandekar, Pranav Nair, S. B. Pawar, Swati Sawant, Harsh Joshi, Prakhar Tandon, Agam H. Maloo

Click here to read/download Judgment


Chief Justice Alok AradheJustice M S Karnik

Namrata Banerjee

Supreme Court Correspondent

Namrata is a Correspondent covering the Supreme Court of India. She has previously practiced law and worked in-house with a Public Sector Undertaking.