Allowed

Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Airmedia Technologies Chennai Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2018ARBAP/106/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Bombay appointed Shaam Kapadia as sole arbitrator for disputes arising from an agreement. The court held notice was served via post, and respondent failed to object. Fees and administrative costs to be shared equally; applicant to pay a donation of Rs.5,000 to Kerala CM's fund before referencing the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Shyam Kapadia as Sole Arbitrator; application disposed; direction to applicant to contribute Rs. 5,000 to Kerala Chief Minister's Relief Fund.

Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Ultra… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

3.ARBAP-106-2017.doc

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2017

¶5

Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

….Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Airmedia Technologies Chennai Pvt. Ltd. ….Respondent ----

¶9

Mr. Shriniket Deshpande I/b. Naik Naik and Co. for applicant. None for respondent.

¶10

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 17^th SEPTEMBER 2018

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1 Applicant has filed this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

¶13

2 Applicant and respondent had entered into an Agreement dated

¶14

9^th August 2012. Clause 25 of the said agreement reads as under :

¶15

25. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of India. In case of any dispute between the parties hereto regarding any of the clauses of this Agreement, the matter shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration shall be conducted by one (1) of three (3) arbitrators of which one each shall be appointed by each Party and the third arbitrator shall be appointed by the two arbitrators so appointed by the Parties. The arbitration award shall be final and binding on the Parties. This Agreement is subject to the laws of India and jurisdiction of Courts in HYDERABAD/MUMBAI.

¶16

3 Disputes arose. In an attempt to settle disputes, parties entered

¶17

into MOU dated 4^th September 2014. As respondent failed to comply with

¶18

the terms of the MOU, applicant filed an application under Section 11 being company application no.165 of 2016 in this Court. By an order dated

Gauri Gaekwad

3.ARBAP-106-2017.doc

2/4

7^th July 2016 applicant was allowed to withdraw the application with liberty to file fresh application, if advised. Accordingly this application has been filed. At Exhibit II is a copy of communication dated 8^th November 2016 from applicant's advocates to respondent invoking arbitration. It is stated in the application that no reply has been received.

¶23

4 This Court has passed an order on 26^th April 2018 directing respondent to remain present in Court either by themselves and/or through their advocate. Copy of that order has been served upon the company. Applicant has filed an affidavit of one Ravi Suryawanshi affirmed on 4^th December 2017 in which it is stated that the packet that was sent to the Nungambakkam Chennai address came back undelivered with the endorsement “no such company at the said address”. Whereas the envelope sent to Theagarya Road, Chennai address has been delivered. The Associate of this Court has taken a print out of the Company Master Data in which the registered address given is the same address, i.e., 56/35, Josier Street, Nungambakkam Chennai, Chennai TN 600 034. Therefore, I would proceed on the basis that notice has been served on respondent. Despite service, respondent is unrepresented and no affidavit in reply has been filed. None of the averments in the application are controverted.

¶24

5 Therefore, Mr. Shyam Kapadia, an advocate practicing in this Court and having his office at 11C Examiner Press Building, Dalal Street,

Gauri Gaekwad

3.ARBAP-106-2017.doc

3/4

Fort, Mumbai 400 001 (email ID : [email protected], mobile no.9820824262) is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to arbitrate on all disputes and differences, including counter claim, if any, arising out of or in connection with or relating to Agreement dated 9^th August 2012. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open, except the question of jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

¶29

6 The fees to be fixed by the Arbitrator, administrative expenses, typing charges and venue charges to be shared equally between the parties, i.e., 50% by applicant and 50% by respondent and the same shall be subject to cost in the arbitral proceedings.

¶30

7 The Arbitrator to communicate in writing to the Advocate for applicant with copy to respondent the disclosures as required under Section 11 (8) read with Section 12 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within two weeks of receiving a copy of this order from any of the party.

¶31

8 Liberty to apply.

¶32

9 Application accordingly stands disposed.

¶33

10 Since applicant had not come with Company Master Data and

¶34

had to rely on Court Officer for the same, applicant to give a donation of Rs.5,000/- to Kerala Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund and this amount to

Gauri Gaekwad

3.ARBAP-106-2017.doc

4/4

be paid within one week from today. Arbitrator to satisfy himself that this amount has been paid before he enters into reference. Account details are as under :

¶39

Name of Donee : Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund Account Number : 67319948232 Bank : State Bank of India Branch : City Branch, Thiruvananthapuram IFSC : SBIN0070028 PAN : AAAGD0584M Account Type : Savings Swift Code : SBININBBT08

¶40

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶41

Digitally signed by Gauri Gauri Amit Amit GaekwadDate: Gaekwad 2018.09.19 11:33:38 +0530

¶42

Gauri Gaekwad

Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Airmedia Technologies Chennai Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Airmedia Technologies Chennai Pvt. Ltd.

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

Radheshyam Mittal Vs Official Liquidator and Another

Dynacraft Machine Company Ltd. Vs Official Liquidator and 7 Others

Ing Deutschland Gmbh Vs Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Limited

Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Vs Mp Toll Roads Ltd. Cin NOU45203MH1996PLC252098

Saatchi and Saatchi Health Ltd. Vs Birla Global Corporate Ltd. Also Known as Indoasean Oceanic Exports Private Limited

Mohammed Aquil Mohmd Ismail Qureshi and 2 Ors. Vs Tarabai Abdul Hussein Gandhi and 5 Ors.