Allowed

M/S. J.P. Films v. Rajtaru Studios Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2010ARBP/122/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, sought to set aside an award. The petitioner alleged the award was passed without notice and in violation of natural justice. The single-judge bench, hearing in the absence of respondents, allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The arbitration petition was allowed and the impugned Award dated 12th October 2006 was set aside.

M/S. J.P. Films Vs Rajtaru Studios Ltd. and 4 Ors. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 arbp-122-07

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

jmi

¶5

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 122 OF 2007.

¶6

M/s. J.P. Films. ..Petitioner.

¶7

vs.

¶8

Rajtaru Studios Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Prasad Page, i/b. C.N. Gole, for Petitioner. None for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER 2010.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The Petitioner has filed the present Petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the said Act) and has prayed that the Award dated 12^th October 2006 passed by the Dispute Settlement Committee of the Association of Motion Pictures Studio, be set aside.

¶13

The present Arbitration Petition was called out for hearing on 12^th March 2009, 17^th September 2009, 12^th October 2010, 22^nd November 2010 and 23^rd November 2010, when none appeared for the Respondent. The Petitioner therefore, pursuant to the direction of this Court served a notice dated 30^th November 2010 informing the Respondent that the Petition is placed for hearing on 3^rd December 2010 and called upon the Respondents to remain present on 3^rd December 2010 or on any date subsequent thereto when the matter appears on board. An Affidavit to this effect filed

¶14

2 arbp-122-07

¶15

on behalf of the Petitioner dated 7^th December 2010 is taken on record. However, despite receiving notice, the Respondents have failed to remain present on 6^th December 2010, 7^th December 2010 and 9^th December 2010, i.e. today. This Court is therefore, constrained to proceed with the hearing of the Petition in the absence of the Respondents.

¶16

Several grounds are set out in the Petition in support of the Petitioner’s contention that the Award deserves to be set aside under section 34 of the said Act. However, the first contention raised by the Petitioner (Respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal) is that on 12^th October 2006 the Arbitral Tribunal without giving notice to the Petitioner proceeded with the meeting in the absence of the Petitioner and also passed an Award against the Petitioner herein (Respondent therein). The Award is therefore, passed without following the principles of natural justice and therefore, against public policy.

¶17

The Respondents in their Affidavit-in-Reply have denied and disputed the said contention of the Petitioner and have relied upon the letter dated 6^th October 2006 addressed by the Association of Motion Pictures Studio to the Petitioner inter-alia recording as follows :

¶18

“ Your above referred matter was placed in the Dispute Settlement Committee Meeting held on 5/10/2006, wherein Mr. Kewal Sharma attended for M/s. Rajtaru Studios Ltd., and Mr. Rajesh Bhatt attended for M/s. J.P. Films, wherein Committee Members present unanimously decided that the Producer should remit the claim amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to this Association as deposit with Association. Further Producer are

¶19

3 arbp-122-07

¶20

requested to pay the said amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to the Association on or before 12/10/2006.

¶21

It was further decided that after depositing the said amount of Rs.7,50,000/- “UNDER PROTEST” the meeting will be adjourned on Tuesday, the 10/11/2006, as per the request of the Producer.

¶22

Kindly do the needful on due date as stated above and oblige.”

¶23

The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the letter dated 6^th October 2006 speaks for itself and there is no mention of any meeting fixed on 12^th October 2006 by the Disputes Settlement Committee.

¶24

I have perused the letter dated 6^th October 2006 the contents of which are reproduced hereinabove. Though it is recorded in the said letter that the Petitioner is requested to deposit an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- on or before 12^th October 2006 and that after depositing the said amount “Under Protest”, the meeting will be adjourned to Tuesday, the 10^th November 2006, there is no specific mention of any meeting/hearing fixed on 12^th October 2006. Assuming that a meeting was fixed on 12^th October 2006, the Arbitral Tribunal in the absence of any directions to the parties as regards filing of their respective pleadings/documents ought not to have proceeded to pass a final Award in the matter in favour of the Respondent and against the Petitioner. In view thereof, it is clearly established that without fixing any meeting on 12^th October 2006 for further hearing in the matter and in the absence of any pleadings filed by the parties the Disputes Settlement Committee has in the

¶25

4 arbp-122-07

¶26

absence of the Petitioner wrongly passed an Award on 12^th October 2006 directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to the Respondents.

¶27

The impugned Award is therefore, passed without following the principles of natural justice and in the absence of any directions to the parties to file their pleadings The said Award, is therefore passed erroneously, is illegal and against public policy. The Arbitration Petition is accordingly, disposed of.

¶28

[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]

M/S. J.P. Films v. Rajtaru Studios Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. J.P. Films v. Rajtaru Studios Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahil Sanjay Mehta Vs Director, Medical Education and Research, and Anr.

mr girish s khandagale Vs union of india acting through deputy chief engineer (c) central railway and 3 Ors.

Dr. Satish Revansidh Hanamshetti and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Atmaram Jugalkishore Patodia Vs Samsulla Amin Bastiwala and 4 Ors.

Global Foundation and 10 Ors. Vs Khadi Anf Village Industries Commission

K.J. Raju Alias Kudunthail John Raju Vs K. Girijavallabhan and 2 Ors.