SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 2825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Affle India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Talent Unlimited Online Services Private Limited & Anr. – Respondents
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 20 of 2023
Decided On : 15-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bharat Chugh, Mr. Siddharth Shivkumar, Mr. Areeb Amanullah and Ms. Prachi Dubey, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Das, Mr. Vipin Tyagi, Ms. Kritika Mundra and Mr. Sankalp Udgata, Advocates, for the Respondents.

The court emphasized the arbitrability of the disputes and the need for the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the appointed tribunal.

Headnote:

Condonation of Delay - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Additionally, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim injunction and other reliefs against the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder and directed the petitioner to file an appropriate application under Section 17 of the Act, 1996 before the appointed tribunal. The court also directed the parties to maintain status quo till the application is decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing rejoinder, seeking interim injunction and other reliefs under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the disputes between the parties to be arbitrable and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The court directed the petitioner to file an application under Section 17 of the Act, 1996 before the appointed tribunal and ordered the parties to maintain status quo till the application is decided.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the above directions, and the court emphasized that the order did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

I.A. 3061/2023(for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing of rejoinder)

1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking condonation of three days' delay in filing the rejoinder.

2. Learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that he has no objection if the application is allowed. In view of the above, the instant application is allowed and the delay of 3 days in filing of rejoinder is condoned.

3. Rejoinder filed by the petitioner be taken on record.

4. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 20/2023

5. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) seeking the following reliefs:

    "a. Issue an interim and/or an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents restraining Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from terminating the Global Monetization Partnership Agreement dated 8.8.2020 ("GMPA") alongwith its two addendums dated 14.02.2022 ("GMPA-1") and 29.08.2022 ("GMPA-2") until the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted and till the pendency of proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal;

    b. Pass such other order(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

6. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a multinational technology firm that offers its services to brands and business-to-consumer enterprises. The respondent no. 1, on the other hand, is a Company that creates and develops input tools for mobile platforms, including virtual keyboards like Bobble Keyboard, Mint Keyboard, etc. It is submitted that the petitioner holds the biggest percentage of shares of respondent no. 1 i.e., 26.24%.

7. It is submitted that in May, 2020, the respondent no. 2 contacted the petitioner on behalf of respondent no. 1 to seek an investment, collaboration, or synergy. A few months later, the petitioner invested in respondent no. 1.

8. It is submitted by learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner that on 8th August, 2020, the parties agreed to execute a Global Monetization Partnership Agreement (GMPA) in order to increase respondent no. 1's income.

9. It is submitted that in accordance with the GMPA, the respondents had to make "Touch Points" in accordance with Clause 1.12 on the virtual keyboard namely "Bobble Properties" enabling the petitioner to display advertisements for its advertisers, collect advertising money, and divide that revenue with respondent no. 5.

10. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that as per clause 1.3 of the contract, respondent no. 1 was entitled to a portion of the profits made from the aforementioned Touch Points.

11. It is further submitted that clauses 7.3 and 7.5 of the GMPA gave petitioner the right to determine the consideration payable to respondent no. 1 and the right to deduct, set-off, claw back, or charge back any money that respondent no. 1 may have earned through dishonest or illegal means (or through actions that violate the GMPA) and that it may owe to the petitioner under the Agreement.

12. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 1 was unwilling to take any precise commitments regarding the provision of certain placements of the petitioner's advertisements or their frequency. Yet, the petitioner's ability to satisfy its income obligations depends heavily on these precise placements of Advertisements in key areas.

13. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the context of this connection, advertisements (as defined by Article 1.2 of the GMPA) consist of two main parts:

i. First, the icon, picture, or graphic element (supplied by the advertisers), which should be displayed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top