The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief against Viacom as there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and Viacom, and Viacom had substantial claims against respondent no. 1.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent no. 1 though served is not appearing. Respondent no. 2 is represented by Dr. Saraf.

2. A short question which arises for consideration in this proceeding is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to an order which is in the nature of garnishee order against respondent no. 2-Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., at the interim stage of the arbitral proceedings.

3. This is a Petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) whereby the petitioner, who has a privity of contract with respondent no. 1 under an agreement titled as Co-Production Agreement dated 25th May, 2017, has principally prayed for reliefs against Viacom 18 Media Private Limited (for short ‘Viacom’). Following are the prayers as made in the Petition:

(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitral proceedings, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to:

(i) deposit a sum of INR 3,41,41,356/- along with an interest rate of 36% p.a. as liquidated damages till payment and/or realization in the registry of this Hon’ble Court; and

(ii) direct deposit of INR 18,000/- per episode for showcasing of every new episode;

(b) Alternatively, pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitral proceedings, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to collect all the monies of the said show (including the revenue) and deposit the share payable to the petitioner in the Escrow Agreement;

(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitral proceedings, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the respondent no. 1, their director/s, representative, servants, agents and all other persons claiming through or under the garb of respondent no. 2 directly or indirectly by order and injunction to not create any third party rights, without seeking prior approval of the petitioner;

(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitral proceedings, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to disclose all the financial arrangement between the respondents, with respect to the exploitation of the said show as is presently applicable;

(e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitral proceedings, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to disclose the quantum of profit already accrued to and enjoyed by them with respect to the exploitation of the said Show by submitting a detailed statement of accounts for the said show since the showcasing of the first episode of the said show;

(f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitral proceedings, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to not disburse any monies in favour of respondent no. 1. Further, to restrain the respondent no. 2, their director/s. Representative. Servants, agents and all other persons to disburse to any third party the amounts being collected with respect to the said Show, until the respondent no. 1 are able to provide the security as sought for under prayers hereinabove;

(g) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitral proceedings, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to deposit in the court all the sums it is liable to pay to respondent no. 1.

(h) for ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) above;

(i) for costs;

(ii) for such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the nature and circumstances of this case.

4. This Petition was moved for ad-interim order. This Court passed an order on 25th June, 2016 recording a statement as made on behalf of Viacom that no amounts are due and payable by Viacom to respondent no. 1 and no amounts shall be paid to respondent no. 1 directly. The order reads thus:

1. Heard Mr. Kanade, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is informed that the respondent no.1 is served and an affidavit of service will be filed during the course of the day. Dr. Saraf appea