Allowed

Noise & Grains Entertainment v. Vasanthakumar

Madras HC23 Feb 2018OP/516/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras appointed Mr. Vinod Kumar as the sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between the petitioner and respondent arising from a sponsorship agreement. The petition under Section 11(6) was allowed, and the interim injunction order was to be continued or modified by the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator; Hearing granted on interim injunction continuance.

Noise & Grains Entertainment Vs Vasanthakumar — Arbitration | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 23.02.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

O.P. No.516 of 2017 and

¶7

O.A.No.88 of 2017

¶8

Noise & Grains Entertainment Rep. by its Partners 1.Mr.A.Mahaveer 2.Mr.C.Karthikeyan 3.Mr.P.Srinivas No.126-D, Yadaval Street, Padi, Chennai 600050 .. Petitioner -vsMr.Vasanthakumar Prop.Vasanth & Co Usman Road, T Nagar, Chennai 600017. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent in relation to the Agreement dated 01.01.2016.

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms.S.P.Arthi For Respondent : Mr.Kaushik N. Sharma

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This petition is filed seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to

¶13

adjudicate upon disputes that have arisen between the parties from

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

¶16

out of Agreement dated 01.01.2016.

¶17

2.The applicant is an Event Management Company and contracted with the respondent to conduct two live performances by Mr.A.R.Rahman, noted musician and music director, titled "Nenje Ezhu" to be hosted in the cities of Chennai and Coimbatore. The respondent is a company engaged in the business of retailing of electrical, electronic and home appliances and its services were sought as one of the sponsors of the event.

¶18

A release order dated 01.01.2016 was entered into inter se

¶19

the parties containing the terms and conditions of the sponsorship. The release order provided for various deliverables/promotions of the respondent to be displayed in the print, radio, cinema, bus back and television media. The respondent undertook to pay, in exchange for the promotion and publicity provided, a sum of Rupees one crore in four tranches.

¶20

4.Admittedly, the events were conducted successfully. The petitioner, according to it, carried out its obligations under the Release Order, in full. However, only a sum of Rs.49,00,000/- has been paid by the respondent as against a sum of Rs.1 Crore and there was no response to demands made towards the balance.

¶21

There is no quarrel on the position that disputes have arisen between the parties. As far as O.P.No.516 of 2017 is concerned, that

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

prays for the appointment of an Arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, 'Act'), Ms.Arthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Kaushik N.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent agree on the appointment of Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon and resolve the issues in line with clause 11 of the Release Order dated 01.01.2016.

¶25

I, thus, appoint Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. He may, after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The Arbitrator is at liberty to fix his remuneration and schedule of expenses.

¶26

O.A.No.88 of 2017 has been filed praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent from directly or indirectly, broadcasting, telecasting, screening, airing or otherwise displaying the video record of the musical event 'Nenje Ezhu' managed by the partner.

¶27

This Court vide order dated 27.11.2017 granted an order of interim injunction for a period of four (4) weeks, that has been extended from time to time. The order of interim injunction is

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶29

¶30

Dr.Anita Sumath,J.

¶31

extended till 15.04.2018 and the continuance or modification of the same may be considered by the Arbitrator, if sought for by the petitioner as an interim application under Section 17 of the Act and in accordance with law.

¶32

9.The Original Petition is allowed and the Original Application is

¶33

ordered in the above terms. No costs. 23.02.2018 msv/sl Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate, No.29, Bannari Amman Towers, 2^nd Floor, Block – A, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 (Mobile No.9840121614)

¶34

O.P. No.516 of 2017 and O.A.No.88 of 2017

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

Noise & Grains Entertainment v. Vasanthakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noise & Grains Entertainment v. Vasanthakumar

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

D.Ramanathan Vs

M/S. Vasavi Housing Vs M/S. Media One Innovation

Dr.Govindaraj Ranganathan Vs M/s.Ozone Projects Pvt.Ltd.

M/s. Rpp Infra Projects Limite Vs M/s. NTPC Tamil Nadu Energy

Mr.K.Kumaran Vs Kgs Developers Ltd.

Cholamandalam investment Vs Mr Mahesh Np