VIPIN MEHRA Vs. STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) is with the prayer to restrain the respondent from discontinuing or disconnecting the supply of signals to the petitioner's cable network.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is running a cable distribution network under the name and style of M/s. World Vision at Model Town, Delhi. The respondent is a broadcaster providing various channels to the cable operators throughout the country. According to the petitioner in the year 2002 vide a Subscription Agreement dated 14.2.2002 he was provided transmission rights of various channels by respondent for the areas comprised of Model Town Phase I, II and III, MCD Colony and Water Supply Colony, Delhi, subsequently, on his request the respondent agreed to extend his operations to the adjoining areas also consisting of Azad Pur, Adarsh Nagar, Naniwala Bagh, Kewal Park, Suraj Nagar, Romeshwar Nagar, Jahangir puri, Delhi. An Agreement in this regard was entered into on 1.1.2003 which was operative from 1.1.2003 to 31-12.2003. The petitioner submitted that on 1.12.2002 in anticipation of inclusion of new areas he entered into an agreement with his franchisee Ranjit Singh of Rama Cable appointing him for the additional areas. It was also averred that due to increase in the area and number of subscribers the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 30/- per subscriber for 1,000 subscribers aggregating to Rs. 30,000/- per month. This subscription agreement was prepared and presented by respondent and was signed by the petitioner but copy thereof was not provided to him by the respondent. Since the earlier agreement was to expire on 13.1.2003 but was terminated on 31st December, 2002 a credit for 13 days in the sum of Rs. 8,775/- was given to the petitioner by the respondent by adjusting the amount in the bill of January, 2003. The balance of Rs. 21,225/- was paid by the petitioner to respondent vide Bankers Cheque dated 8.1.2003 which was duly received by the respondent. In the month of February, 2003 the respondent refused to accept the monthly charges which were later received on 7.3.2003. On inquiries the petitioner came to know that M/s. Win Cable & Data Com. Pvt. Ltd. in which the respondent had substantial equity holding, was also operating in the additional areas with the petitioner and as such the respondent was intending to disconnect the signals to the petitioner. The petitioner's franchisee Ranjit Singh filed a suit for injunction in the District Courts against the petitioner as well as respondent and others in which ex parte ad interim injunction was granted but later his application was dismissed. The petitioner pleaded that in view of its agreement dated 1.1.2003 the respondent has no right to disconnect or discontinue supply of signals to his cable network and as such prayed for interim relief. It was pleaded that in the event the respondent succeeds in its designs the petitioner would suffer business loss in excess of Rs.50 lakhs and he would be rendered unemployed.

(3.) Respondent filed a reply to the petitioner's application raising numerous preliminary objections including that there was no concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondent. It was also added that respondent had sent a Subscription Agreement to the petitioner for the earlier areas only but the petitioner made certain changes therein unilaterally including the additional areas which was not acceptable to the respondent. It was stated that in the absence of a concluded contract between the parties, the arbitration clause also as contained in the agreement did not survive. Referring to the earlier suit filed by Ranjit Singh against the petitioner and the present respondent it was pleaded that in view of dismissal of the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 the petitioner was disentitled to claim same relief in the present petition. It was denied that the petitioner had been given any right to provide cable network services in the newly added areas. It was specifically stated in para 7 of the reply that the petitioner had mischievously entered the additional areas in the Subscription Agreement dated 1.1.2003. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the records. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is entitled to interim relief as prayed inasmuch as the Agreement dated 1.1.2003, which was a concluded contract between the parties, is still subsisting and is operative upto 31.12.2003. It is submitted that in the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the respondent has conceded that the additional areas mentioned in the said agreement are in the writing of the representative of the respondent and as such the respondent cannot contend that the said areas were not part of the agreement. Relying upon the payment of Rs. 30,000/- per month, it is submitted that this increase in the Subscription was on account of the increase in the number of subscribers as well as the increase in the area and as such the respondent has no right to stop the supply of signals to the petitioner.