Dismissed

M/S Lotus Refineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and another

Bombay HC8 Mar 2013ARBP/253/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this arbitration petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner sought an injunction against broadcasting a TV show logo. The High Court held that rights to decide termination belong to the arbitrator. The disposal amounted to specific performance and was therefore denied. A sole arbitrator was appointed by consent.

What did the court decide?

Peteritioner's prayer for interim injunction was refused; sole arbitrator appointed by consent.

M/S Lotus Refineries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Star India Pvt. Ltd. and another — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2013)

kvm

1/4

ARBPL297.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 297 OF 2013

¶7

M/s.Lotus Refineries Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

..... Petitioner

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

¶11

..... Respondents

¶12

Mr.Simil Purohit, a/w. Mr.Dilip Shukla, i/b. M/s.Yash Associates for the Petitioner.

¶13

Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr.Sanjay Kadam and Ms.Apeksha Sharma, i/b. M/s.Kadam & Co. for the Respondents.

¶14

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATED : 8^th MARCH, 2013

¶15

P.C.

¶16

By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, petitioner seeks injunction against the respondents from broadcasting telecasting, promoting, displaying on the Internet or in any manner or in any mode the episode

¶17

of Nach Baliye – 5, without the LOGO of the petitioner.

¶18

On 22^nd December, 2012, the petitioner and the 1^st respondent had entered

¶19

into an agreement by which the petitioner was appointed as a sponsor of the reality show Nach Baliya - 5 on the terms and conditions setout therein. Mr.Purohit, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in terms of the

kvm

2/4

ARBPL297.13

said agreement, the petitioner made payments from time to time which are reflected at page 24 of the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner did not commit any default, in making payment of any installments in terms of the agreement.

¶24

It is averred by the petitioner in para 27 of the petition that after alleged termination of the contract on 25^th February, 2013, the respondent started displaying the LOGO of their present sponsors i.e. Dabur Babool on the website as well as on the television which would clearly suggest the malafide on the part of the respondent.

¶25

The 1^st respondent has filed detailed affidavit in reply opposing the grant of reliefs as claimed. It is the case of the 1^st respondent that the petitioner did not make payment of the consideration amount on time. The petitioner also did not submit the bank guarantee which he was required to submit in addition to the payment. The 1^st respondent placed reliance upon several letters sent to the petitioner by e-mail to comply with part of the obligation on the part of the petitioner and to submit bank guarantee and/or to release the payment on due date. It is the case of the 1^st respondent that as the petitioner did not comply with the

¶26

terms of the agreement, on 25^th February, 2013, the 1^st respondent has terminated the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent. The

kvm

3/4

ARBPL297.13

matter was mentioned for ad-interim reliefs before this Court by the petitioner on 1^st March, 2013. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 1^st respondent, this Court had refused to grant ad-interim relief by observing that the 3^rd party rights having been already created by the respondent, no ad-interim relief could be granted to the petitioner at that stage.

¶31

It is not in dispute that after rejection of the ad-interim by this Court on 1^st March, 2013, the next two episodes are already telecast on 2^nd and 3^rd March, 2013 with the LOGO of Dabur Babool with whom the respondent no.1 has claimed to have entered into an agreement. It is also not in dispute that the last episode would be telecast on 23^rd March, 2013.

¶32

In my view, whether termination is illegal or not would be decided by the learned arbitrator and cannot be decided by this Court under section 9. It is not in dispute that the agreement with the petitioner has been already terminated. Any interim injunction in respect of such termination order would in my view amount to granting specific performance at the stage of section 9. It is made clear that no views are expressed by this Court on the merits of the matter about the validity of the termination.

kvm

4/4

ARBPL297.13

In my view, no case is made out for grant of any interim measures in favour of the petitioner. By consent of both parties though arbitration agreement provides for appointment of three arbitrators, Mr.Phiroz Palkiwala, advocate is appointed as

¶37

a sole arbitrator.

¶38

Arbitration petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶39

No order as to costs.

M/S Lotus Refineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Lotus Refineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and another

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

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs M/S. Saber Papers Limitedand 4 Ors.

Evergreen Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Laguna Resort Pvt. Ltd.

Jayesh D. Shah and 2 Ors. Vs Kaydee Family Trust and 5 Ors.

F.M.Chinoy and Co.Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs Shann Interwell (I) Ltd.and Anr.

Vaibhav Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vatan Dye Chem (Export) Ltd.