Leave us a Message

Bombay High Court: Non-Signatories Can Also Be Forced into Arbitration

 

Overview

In this matter, the Bombay High Court analysed whether a dispute should be sent to arbitration and who all should be part of that arbitration. An application was filed by Jupicos Entertainment, for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a dispute related to a cricket team in the T20 Mumbai League. 

The main issue was not just about appointing an arbitrator, but also about whether the Mumbai Cricket Association could still be forced to participate in the arbitration, even if it hadn’t signed the main agreement.

The Bombay High Court had to decide who were the parties to the dispute and whether the matter should further be resolved through arbitration. 

 

Facts of the Case

The case began in 2018, when the MCA organised a local T20 cricket league and appointed the respondent i.e., Probability Sports to manage it. A group won the rights to operate a team through a bidding process and Jupicos Entertainment, the applicant herein, was responsible to run that team, called as Shivaji Park Lions.

The applicant entered into a Participation Agreement with the respondent, which stated that all the decisions would ultimately need approval from the MCA. In 2019, a Supplementary Agreement was entered into between all the three parties to make certain amendments to some of the terms and to ensure minimum income for the owners of the team. 

Issues began to arise during the second season when the applicant claimed that it incurred certain losses and payments weren’t made properly. In 2020, the respondent terminated the agreement, which was further approved by the MCA. 

Even after the same, the applicant continued to stay connected with the MCA and took part in discussions for the next few years. In 2024, after it cleared its pending dues, the applicant was still excluded from the meetings, and the MCA invited fresh bids for its territory. 

After earlier attempts by the applicant failed, it finally took the matter to arbitration in 2025 to the Bombay High Court. 

 

Legal Issues

  1. Whether MCA can be forced into arbitration even though it is a non-signatory to the main agreement.
  2. Whether the Participation Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement are so closely interlinked that they form a single transaction, making all the parties bound by the arbitration clause.
  3. Whether MCAs control and approval makes it a “veritable party” to the dispute. 
  4. Whether the court at this stage of appointing an arbitrator, can analyse if the claims are too old, or should it leave the matter to the arbitral tribunal. 

 

Decision

The Bombay High Court allowed the application by Jupicos and appointed an arbitrator to decide the dispute. 

The court stated that MCA cannot avoid arbitration merely by mentioning that it is not a signatory to the main agreement. It was concluded that MCA played an important role in the entire process. It planned the league, controlled certain decisions, and even was responsible for approving the termination of the agreement. Due to this, it was considered as a proper party to the dispute.

The court also stated that all the agreements were so closely connected that they were considered to be a part of one larger arrangement. Therefore, the arbitration clause was applicable to all the parties involved in the arrangement. 

As to the issue of delay, the court refused to reject the case at this stage. It laid down that such questions should be decided by the arbitrator after considering both sides properly. 

At last, the court appointed a sole arbitrator and the matter proceeded towards arbitration.

 

Case Reference:- Jupicos Entertainment Private Ltd. (Applicant) Vs. Probability Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. {Respondent(s)} Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 18608 of 2025 (SJB, Delivered by Sandeep V. Marne, J.)