CINEVISTAAS LIMITED Vs. PRASAR BHARATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition titled as one under Section 11 (6) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on the averments that the disputes and differences had arisen between the petitioner and the respondent which were subject matter of arbitration as per clause 23 of the agreement between the parties and which is as under:

(2.) IT is further the case in the petition that the respondent Prasar bharati vide letter dated 3rd March, 2003 to the petitioner invoked the aforesaid clause 23 of the agreement between the parties. The said letter is as under:

(3.) THE petitioner claims to have written a letter dated 24th November, 2003 to the Chief Executive Officer aforesaid of the respondent enclosing its claims/counter claims on the various issues and denying the claims of the respondent Prasar Bharati against itself. The petitioner in the said letter also stated that the reference of disputes to the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent was misconceived and not maintainable and in the view of the petitioner the arbitration could not be proceeded with. The petitioner, however, without prejudice to its said contention further stated that in the event the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent entertains the claims of the respondent, then the counter claims raised by the petitioner in the said letter be also treated to have been referred to arbitration. The petitioner thereafter as part of member of the Film Producers Guild of India Limited made several representations to the respondent Prasar Bharati and the documents filed by the petitioner show that a sub Committee was also constituted by the respondent prasar Bharati to look into the said grievances. The petitioner vide letter dated 20th January, 2005 to the CEO of the respondent requested for slotting the programmes of the petitioner on television pending arbitration proceedings. Another letter dated 24th January, 2005 was sent in this regard. The petitioner was vide letter dated 7th March, 2005 of the respondent informed that the sub-committee constituted by the respondent had reported that there was no merit in the grievance of the petitioner.