MADHUBALA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NAAZ CINEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON February 6, 1963, Shri R. L. Sehgal, Commercial Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi, ordered an award dated September 20, 1960 to be made the rule of the Court. Accordingly in terms of the award a decree was passed for Rs. 10,513.75, including Rs. 513.75 on account of costs of arbitration proceedings, in favour of Messrs Naaz Cinema and against Messrs Madhubala Private Limited. This appeal is against the order and decree of the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) ON March. 18, 1960 there was an agreement between Messrs Madhubala Private Limited, Delhi, and Messrs Naaz Cinema, New Delhi. Messrs Madhubala Private Limited are producers and distributors of cinematograph films and have hereinafter been referred to as "the.discributors". Messrs Naaz Cinema is a firm registered under the Indian partnership Act and is an exhibitor of cinematograph films. For facility of reference they are called hereinafter as "the exhibitors". The agrement between the distributors and the exhibitors provided for the former supplying to the latter a cinematograph film called "Mehlon-Ke-Khwab", on certain terms, from March 25, 1960. The picture was to be released simultaneously in Nazz and Golcha cinemas and the exhibitors were required to give 28 shows per week for a minimum . period of two weeks. Clause 7 of the agreement also provided for referring any dispute that may arise to arbitration and was in the following terms :-

(3.) THIS was not disputed by Shri Daya Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents, that the reference dated April 27, 1960 was only made by the exhibitors. The record of proceedings before the arbitrators, which was filed in the court of the Commercial Subordinate Judge, also shows that the reference on which arbitration proceedings were started was a unilateral one. Shri Daya Krishna, however, contended that the Managing Director of the distributors appeared before the arbitrators on July 26, 1960 for making a statement and thus the distributors submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators and that it was not open to them to challenge the validity of the award by urging that both sides had not assented to the reference.