Delhi HC Restrains Transfer of Legends League Rights in JioStar Dispute

On March 18, 2026, the Delhi High Court in the case of Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited & Anr. granted interim relief restraining Absolute Legends from creating any third-party rights or transferring, assigning, or otherwise dealing with the media and commercial rights relating to the Legends League Cricket Masters T20 tournament.

The dispute arose from a recent transaction involving Blue God Entertainment (formerly Indra Industries), which shifted its business from fertiliser manufacturing to entertainment, acquiring long-term licensing rights of Legends League Cricket from its current owner, Absolute Legends Sports, for a period of ten years, for ₹49 crore.

The petition concerns a commercial arrangement between Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. and Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited regarding the media and commercial rights of the T20 tournament. It has been alleged by Jiostar that Absolute Legends owed certain dues and was attempting to deal with the rights in a manner that could undermine its contractual entitlements.

Accordingly, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Delhi High Court, seeking interim relief pending arbitration, including recovery of an approximate amount of ₹3.59 crore, securing amounts receivable from the commercial exploitation of the league, and restraining Absolute Legends from dealing with the league’s rights or creating third-party interests therein.

The petitioner contended that, although the outstanding dues were not disputed by the respondent, the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement despite mediation efforts, primarily due to disagreements over the timelines proposed for repayment. It was further contended that, in the absence of immediate protection, Absolute Legends may create third-party rights or transfer the media and commercial rights, which could result in erosion of the subject matter of the dispute.

The Court noted that although the respondent had not disputed the outstanding amounts, no amicable resolution could be reached between the parties. It further observed that, irrespective of any settlement proposals, there was an urgent need to ensure that the assets of Respondent No. 1 were not transferred in a manner that would create third-party rights and prejudice the petitioner’s claims.

Recognising that any such transfer would lead to a complete erosion of the subject matter of the dispute, the Court, at a prima facie stage, held it necessary to interdict the proposed transfer of rights. Accordingly, the Court restrained Respondent No. 1 from, in any manner, creating any third-party rights or transferring, assigning, or otherwise dealing with the media and commercial rights.