MUMBAI, May 10 -- The Bombay high court on Wednesday refused to restrain the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) from conducting further editions of the T20 Mumbai League without one of the teams, Shivaji Park Lions, whose contract was terminated in 2020 for allegedly defaulting on payments. A division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice MS Karnik disposed of the plea filed by Jupicos Entertainment Pvt Ltd, a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that owns the Shivaji Park Lions, and refused to interfere with a single-judge bench's decision in April to deny the petitioner interim relief. The single-judge bench had cited an "inordinate delay" of five years in challenging the MCA's 2020 termination order. Jupicos was formed in 2018, after a consortium of Juniper City Developers (India) Ltd (JCDIL) and Cosmos Prime Projects Limited (CPPL) successfully bid for a team representing Mumbai South Central for the first five editions of the league. In its petition, Jupicos claimed that it suffered huge losses in the second edition of the league in 2019. The company said it transferred its entire participation fee of Rs.5.6 crore to the MCA, but received an income of only Rs.3.7 crore, including GST. In November 2019, Probability Sports (India) Pvt Ltd, a company that operates the T20 Mumbai League for the MCA, issued a notice alleging that Jupicos had defaulted on a payment of around Rs.35 lakh towards the participation fee for the league's second edition. It also failed to deposit a tax deducted at source (TDS) amount of Rs.68.4 lakh for two financial years with respect to the first edition, the company claimed. Following this, a termination notice was served to Jupicos in January 2020. Jupicos filed an arbitration petition in the Bombay high court in March, seeking temporary injunction to restrain the MCA from conducting any further editions of the league without the Shivaji Park Lions. Senior advocate Vivek Tankha, representing the petitioner, told the court that after the termination notice was issued, Jupicos had held meetings with the respondents, wherein it maintained that it was willing to pay the amount due after it received the sponsorship fee. In response, senior advocate Ashish Kamat, representing MCA, contended that the termination was valid and in line with the legal framework....