JUDGMENT - CHANDRACHUD D.Y. (Dr.), J.:-This Chamber Summons is to set aside a warrant of attachment of 29th May, 2003 issued in an execution proceeding arising out of what is purported to be an Arbitral Award dated 6th September, 2002. The applicant seeks a declaration that there is no executable decree or decree on Award in favour of the complainant under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. In order to appreciate the submissions which have been urged before the Court, it would be necessary to advert to the relevant facts. The claimant in the arbitral proceeding is the complainant while the applicant in support of the Chamber Summons is the party against whom purportedly an award is passed.

3. On 29th March, 1993, a Deed of Assignment was entered into between the applicant and the complainant by which the complainant assigned certain rights in respect of two films in favour of the applicant. On 5th November 2001, the complainant lodged a claim before the Film Makers Combine (FMC) seeking to recover from the applicant a total amount of Rs. 1.25 crores inter alia on account of damages for the loss of the negatives of one of the said two films by the name of "Naami Chor."

4. FMC has a complaint registration form which every complainant has to fill in. Clause 3 of the form requires the complainant to furnish details of the date of the contract, the date of expiry of contract and on "whether the contract contains a clause for arbitration according to the Rules of FMC". These three items were filled up by the compliant with the words "N.A." (Not Applicable). The complainant stated that it was claiming compensation in the amount of Rs. 1.25 crores and the return of the Beta Tapes of two films. In paragraph 1 of the complaint, the complainant stated that it is a member of the Western India Film Producers Association, while the applicant is a member of the Indian Motion Picture Producers Association ("IMPPA"). Hence, it was stated, FMC had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute.

5. On 6th November, 2001, FMC forwarded a copy of the complaint to the applicant and while seeking comments of the applicant requested the applicant to settle the matter amicably. This was followed by a further letter dated 5th December, 2001, calling upon the applicant to expedite its reply before the complaint was referred to the relevant Committee of FMC.

6. On 9th January, 2002, a reply was addressed on behalf of the applicant to FMC. Though the merits of the reply are not particularly relevant at this stage, it may be noted that the case of the applicant was that by letters of 14th May, 1996 and 21st September, 1996, the complainant had been requested to collect the negatives of the film and by a letter dated 21st September, 1996, the laboratory concerned had also been called upon to release the negatives and U-Matics of the film. A copy of that letter was forwarded by FMC to the complainant which in turn responded by a letter dated 24th January, 2002.

7. On 7th February, 2002, Smt. Smita Thackeray as Chairperson of FMC addressed a letter to the applicant stating that the matter had been considered by the Executive Committee on 25th January, 2002 when a representative of the complainant appeared and stated that though the negatives of the film had been entrusted to the applicant, they had not been returned. The Chairperson of FMC stated that before the matter was referred to the relevant Committee for adjudication, it ought to be settled amicably. The Chairperson stated that the contention of the representative of the complainant was that he had enough evidence to show that the negative had been lost when it was with the applicant. The Chairperson called upon the applicant "in all fairness" in that case to make good the loss. On 25th March, 2002 the applicant responded to the aforesaid letter by adverting to its Advocates letter dated 9th January, 2002 and denied its liability to make good the alleged loss of the negatives.

8. On 28th March, 200

Click Here to Read the rest of this document