O P MITTAL Vs. BOBBY ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Act). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was holding the distribution rights of the motion picture RAJKUMAR for Delhi and UP circuit. On 13/3/1996 he entered into agreement with the respondent No.1 who was controlling the playing time of Savitri cinema for exhibition of picture RAJKUMAR at the said cinema hall on a theatre hire of Rs.1,15,000.00 for 28 effective shows in a week. It was also agreed between the parties that the petitioner shall contribute a sum of Rs.20,000.00 per week as issuing tickets to boost up the business and he shall not be entitled to call for the details of the same. The movie was to be screened for three weeks. Screening of the film started on 22/3/1996. However, the since the movie could not do well at the box office on 3/4/1996 i.e. after two weeks the petitioner requested for discontinuation thereof. The respondent No.1 thereafter submitted the accounts as per which it had to recover the money from the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not pay the amount, the respondent No.1 filed a claim of Rs. 1,18,210.10 paisa before the Dues Realisation Commission under Special Sub Committee (for short 'DR Committee')of respondent No.2 i.e. Motion Picture Association(hereinafter referred to as the 'Association'). It may be mentioned at this stage that both the petitioner and respondent No.1 are the members of this Association and are therefore governed by the Rules and Regulations which contain procedure for realising the commission and also arbitration in case of dispute. The petitioner filed reply on 9/6/1997 before the DR Committee. On 11/6/1997 the DR Committee held that amount due to the respondent No.1 to the extent of Rs.1,18,210.10 paisa was payable by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 thereafter reminded the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount. On the other hand, the petitioner approached the DR Committee for reconsideration and on the said request of the petitioner, the DR Committee directed that the matter be placed before it for final consideration on 20/8/1997. The respondent No.1 opposed the recalling notice and move of the DR Committee to reconsider the matter. Thereafter the DR Committee referred the matter to Mr. G.S. Mayawala for settlement/adjudication. The minutes of the meeting held on 2/9/1997 which were recorded show that Mr. Mayawala was to act as sole arbitrator. At this stage, the present petition was filed.

(2.) In this petition the petitioner has stated in para 4 that Mr. Mayawala has been appointed as arbitrator by the Association. In the relief clause the petitioner has prayed that another arbitrator be appointed by the Association and Mr.Mayawala be removed as arbitrator. The removal of Mr. Mayawala is sought on the ground that he is an interested party and a biased person. In addition to the dispute relating to screening of motion picture RAJKUMAR, the petitioner has a claim of Rs. 10.00 lacs as damages on account of alleged malafide and illegal action of the respondent No.1 In para 17 of the statement of Fact, the following disputes are raised :

(3.) In the reply filed by the respondent No.1, it is stated that there is no dispute which has to be referred for adjudication inasmuch as the DR Committee has already directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,18,210.10 paisa. It is stated that the petitioner has in fact admitted that the aforesaid amount is payable by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. It is further submitted that in any case appeal is provided against the decision of the DR Committee under the rules and the petitioner could file the said appeal. Having failed to file the appeal, the present petition was not maintainable. It is also stated that in the minutes of the DR Committee held on 11/6/1997 it was wrongly recorded that Mr. G.S. Mayawala would be the sole arbitrator. When the respondent No.1 pointed out this by its communication dated 18/9/2001/19/9/1997 to the OR Committee, it realised its mistake. In the meeting of 30/9/1997 it was recorded that Mr. Mayawala was not appointed as arbitrator but for mediation. Accordingly, it is submitted by the respondent No.1 that the petition is misconceived and the arbitrator is not required to be appointed. The position in respect of this is summed up by the respondent No.1 in the following manner: 1. It is the admitted position between the parties that the petitioner had agreed by letter dated 13/3/1996 to contribute sum of Rs. 20,000.00 per week for issuance of tickets. The same is admitted position. 2. Perusal of the letter dated 3/4/1996 at page 3 of the respondent no.1's documents which has been concealed by the petitioner is that he himself requested for discontinuance of the picture after two weeks though false stand has been taken in the petition that film was to be screened for three weeks. Despite of its own letter a false stand has been taken by the petitioner. 3. Bare perusal of the reply before DR Committee dated 9/6/1997 itself demonstrates that there was no dispute of amounts as have been calculated. 4. That Sh. G.S. Mayawala was never appointed as sole arbitrator and rightly committee rectified in its minutes of the meeting dated 13/9/1996 that he was appointed as mediator and not as sole arbitrator hence not only petition is not maintainable rather material facts have been concealed from this court.