1. The present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) is filed by M/s.Nalini Singh Associates (hereinafter referred to as the Objector, for short) challenging the interim Award dated 31st May, 2003.

2. The Objector is engaged in production of news and current affairs related television programmes and had entered into a business relationship with M/s.Prime Time-IP Media Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as the respondent, for short). By Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st November, 1996, the respondent was appointed as an exclusive agent for sale of advertisement time also known as “free commercial time” for news based programme titled Aankhon Dekhi on Doordarshan channel. Subsequently, the respondent was also appointed as an exclusive agent for selling advertisements or free commercial time for the news programme called Dopahar Aankhon Dekhi.

3. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st November, 1996 contained an arbitration clause. The Objector invoked the said arbitration clause and in consequence thereof, Mr. Justice Avadh Behari Rohtagi (retd), former Judge of this Court was appointed as the sole Arbitrator.

4. The Objector had made a claim of Rs.1,96,47,954/- against the respondent on account of minimum guarantee charges for the period between 2000 and 30th April, 2001.

5. The respondent, on the other hand, had submitted that w.e.f. 2000 they found it difficult to sell air time on the two programmes and payment of minimum guarantee amount became commercially unviable. It was stated that the respondent was suffering loss of Rs.16 lakhs per month and the commercial prospects of the programmes were bleak. There was settlement in terms of the letters dated 15th March 2001, 16th March 2001 and 9th May 2001 and Rs. 26.81 lacs was payable towards minimum guarantee charges. The Memorandum of Understanding had a termination clause and by notice dated 24th April, 2001, the respondent gave two weeks time to terminate the agreement for marketing of the two programmes.

6. It is an admitted case that letter dated 15th March, 2001 was written by the respondent to the Objector and states that there was a protracted correspondence of commercial viability of the two programmes. It also records that there was a meeting and mutual agreement was arrived at on 14th March, 2001. The letter thereafter purports to record, the mutual agreement. As per the said letter, the respondent was to pay Rs.50 lakhs to the Objector in case the programmes were given PSB status by Doordarshan w.e.f. 4th September, 2000 and in case PSB status was not granted, the respondent would be liable to pay Rs.26.81 lakhs to the Objector.

7. Letter dated 16th March, 2001 is addressed by the Chartered Accountant of the Objector to the respondent. It records that the sum offered was a small portion of Rs.105 lakhs that was due. It was stated that the Objector expects that the amount would be revised to a reasonable figure keeping in view totality of the situation. It was further stated that in view of continued business relationship and spirit of discussion and coordination, the Objector expects the respondent to offer a more reasonable amount and better terms and conditions. It was also pointed out that the Objector was under grave financial burden which was causing mental pressure and agony to the proprietor.

.8. After exchange of these two letters dated 15th March, 2001 and 16th March, 2001, for about two months the matter continued to fester though there was exchange of correspondence between the parties. On 24th April, 2001 the respondent wrote a letter stating, inter alia, that in spite of their best efforts and due to prevalent Doordarshan policies and market conditions, they were not in a position to continue with marketing of the two television programmes. Accordingly, the respondent gave two weeks notice to terminate the agreement for marketing of the