STARCON INDIA LTD & ANR. Vs. PRASAR BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the Decree Holder(DH) No.1/ applicant seeking the release of a sum of Rs.33,69,94,847/- as deposited by the Judgment Debtor(JD) along with interest, in compliance of order dated 13.12.2018, read with order dated 18.01.2019, passed by this Court in these very proceedings.

(2.) Learned counsel for the DH No.1 submits that vide an award dated 26.12.2016, the learned Arbitrator had allowed the claim of the DH No.1 by holding that the DH was entitled to receive compensation at the rate of USD 32,40,740 per day for the shortfall of broadcasting rights for 17 cricketing days along with interest of 18% p.a., which award was assailed by the JD by way of O.M.P. (COMM) 225/2017. He submits that, upon the challenge by the JD, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 13.03.2020, while setting aside a part of the award, has specifically upheld the remaining part thereof, by holding that the DHs were entitled to 7 days of shortfall of cricket days. By drawing my attention to paras 54, 58 and 69 of this judgment, he contends that the learned Judge while finding fault with the findings of the learned arbitrator regarding 10 days of shortfall, had upheld the finding qua the remaining 7 cricketing days. The DHs were, therefore, granted liberty to raise and agitate its claim for compensation qua the shortfall of 7 days, in accordance with law. He further submits that under the award dated 26.12.2016, which was the subject matter of O.M.P.(COMM)225/2017, of which enforcement is being sought in the present petition, the learned arbitrator while awarding a sum of USD 5,509,259 million for 17 days of shortfall, had computed the same by awarding compensation of USD 32,40,740 per day. He, thus, contends that the DHs are entitled to claim for 7 cricketing days at the per day rate awarded by the learned arbitrator, in terms of order dated 13.03.2020.

(3.) Mr. Dholakia further submits that even though liberty has been granted to the DHs to claim compensation for 7 cricketing days in accordance with law, since it was the JD's own case before this Court, as articulated by its counsel, Mr. Rajeev Sharma on 13.12.2018, read with order dated 18.01.2019, that the amount as quantified for 7 days shortfall was Rs.15,37,03,465/-; no further adjudication is necessary in this regard. The JD has deposited a sum of Rs.33,69,9484/- with this Court, i.e., the aforesaid sum of Rs.15,37,03,465/- towards 7 days shortfall of cricketing days along with interest @ 9% p.a. He, therefore, contends that the DH No.1 is entitled to receive the sum of Rs.15,37,03,465/-, with interest @18% p.a., instead of interest @ 9% p.a., in accordance with that part of the award which has not been tinkered with by the learned Judge in O.M.P.(COMM)225/2017. He further submits that the DH No.2 has already assigned its rights qua the present claim in favour of the DH No.1, for which purpose, he seeks to place reliance on an affidavit dated 30.08.2017 filed by one Mr. Duncan Edward Fay, acting on behalf of DH No. 2. He further submits that the claim of the JD that it is entitled to recover huge amounts from the DHs under the 3 other awards in its favour and therefore the amount deposited before this Court should not be released to the DHs is wholly misplaced, as even according to the own averments of the JD in E.A. 3280/2019, the amount payable to the JD under the 3 awards was only Rs.22,43,55,126/-, whereas the amount payable to the DH/applicant under the award of which enforcement is being sought is more that Rs.68 crores under the award of which enforcement is being sought. He, therefore, prays that the entire amount of Rs.33,69,94,847/- deposited by the JD be released in favour of the DH No.1 by remittance to its bank account.