Back
High Court Of Delhi
VIPIN MEHRA - Appellant
Versus
STAR INDIA PVT.LTD. - Respondent
O.M.P. 126 of 2003
Decided On : 09/01/2003
Prima fade it must be held that Agreement was a concluded contract between the petitioner and respondent.
The additional areas mentioned in Col No. 1 of the agreement are in the hand writing of the representative of the respondent who had filled up the other columns of this Agreement.
The fact that on 1.12.2002, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with his franchisee permitting him to operate in additional areas does not show that the petitioner was planning some fraud or forgery but rather it prima facie suggests the negotiations for inclusion of additional areas in the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent were already on and in anticipation of grant of additional areas the petitioner entered into a contract with its franchisee on 1.12.2002 giving him right to operate in the additional areas. These questions, however, remain open for decision by the Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with law but prima facie it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given any right to have its cable net work in the additional areas mentioned in the Subscription Agreement dated 1.1.2003.
Where the parties are shown to have entered into a commercial contract for a specified period every effort should be made to make them abide by the terms and conditions thereof. Damages would certainly be not an adequate relief to the petitioner for the reason that not only he would suffer loss of business and trade reputation but he may be involved in further litigation also with his franchisees. The Court can certainly supervise and enforce compliance of its directions in case of violation as the same would render the respondent liable to action under Contempt of Courts Act.
Therefore, the petitioner has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case in its favor for grant of interim relief as prayed. The balance of convenience is also more in favor of the petitioner who has acted upon the agreement dated 1.1.2003 and in case interim relief is not granted the petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable loss/injury. However, the petitioner has to be put to certain terms while granting interim relief so that in case it is ultimately held that the petitioner had no right to the additional areas or there was no concluded contract between the parties it would become difficult for the respondent to recover his losses and dues from the petitioner. The financial interests of the respondent thereforee, have to be properly protected.
Under the circumstances, till the finalisatian of the arbitral proceedings between the parties or 31.12.2003, whichever is earlier, the respondent stands restrained from disconnecting its signals to the petitioner subject to the condition that within two Weeks from today the petitioner, furnishes a security in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court and continues to pay monthly subscriptions also in terms of agreement dated 1.1.2003.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) is with the prayer to restrain the respondent from discontinuing or disconnecting the supply of signals to the petitioner s cable network.
( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is running a cable distribution network under the name and style of m/s. World Vision at Model Town, Delhi. The respondent is a broadcaster providing various channels to the cable operators throughout the country. According to the petitioner in the year 2002 vide a Subscription Agreement dated 14. 2. 2002 he was provided transmission rights of various channels by respondent for the areas comprised of Model Town Phase I, II and III, MCD Colony and Water Supply colony, Delhi, subsequently, on his request the respondent agreed to extend his operations to the adjoining areas also consisting of Azad Pur, Adarsh Nagar, naniwala Bagh, Kewal Park, Suraj Nagar, Romeshwar Nagar, Jahangir puri, Delhi. An Agreement in this regard was entered into on 1. 1. 2003 which was operative from 1. 1. 2003 to 31-12. 2003. The petitioner submitted that on 1. 12. 2002 in anticipation of inclusion of new areas he entered into an agreement with his franchisee Ranjit Singh of Rama Cable appointing him for the additional areas. It was also averred that due to increase in the area and number of subscribers the petitioner was required to pay rs. 30/- per subscriber for 1,000 subscribers aggregating to Rs. 30,000/- per month. This subscription agreement was prepared and presented by respondent and was signed by the petitioner but copy thereof was not provided to him by the respondent. Since the earlier agreement was to expire on 13. 1. 2003 but was terminated on 31st december, 2002 a credit for 13 days in the sum of Rs. 8,775/- was given to the petitioner by the respondent by adjusting the amount in the bill of January, 2003. The balance of Rs. 21,225/- was paid by the petitioner to respondent vide Bankers cheque dated 8. 1. 2003 which was duly received by the respondent. In the month of February, 2003 the respondent refused to accept the monthly charges which were later received on 7. 3. 2003. On inquiries the petitioner came to know that M/s. Win cable and Data Com. Pvt. Ltd. in which the respondent had substantial equity holding, was also operating in the additional areas with the petitioner and as such the respondent was intending to disconnect the signals to the petitioner. The petitioner s franchisee Ranjit Singh filed a suit for injunction in the District Courts against the petitioner as well as respondent and others in which ex parte ad interim injunction was granted but later his application was dismissed. The petitioner pleaded that in view of its agreement dated 1. 1. 2003 the respondent has no right to disconnect or discontinue supply of signals to his cable network and as such prayed for interim relief. It was pleaded that in the event the respondent succeeds in its designs the petitioner would suffer business loss in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs and he would be rendered unemployed.
( 3 ) RESPONDENT filed a reply to the petitioner s application raising numerous preliminary objections including that there was no concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondent. It was also added that respondent had sent a subscription Agreement to the petitioner for the earlier areas only but the petitioner made certain changes therein unilaterally including the additional areas which was not acceptable to the respondent. It was stated that in the absence of a concluded contract between the parties, the arbitration clause also as contained in the agreement did not survive. Referring to the earlier suit filed by Ranjit Singh against the petitioner and the present respondent it was pleaded that in view of dismissal of the petitioner s application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 the petit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
