TORRENT ADVERTISERS Vs. OPPO MOBILES, ORISSA PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.5.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Arb(P) No.05 of 2018, whereby the learned District Judge, Khurda dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( in short 'the Act').

(2.) The appellant-petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Khurda praying, inter alia, to stay the letter dated 17.11.2007 issued by the respondent-opposite party, not to appoint any other person to carry on advertisement on the locations, payment of monthly rental fee as per the terms of the agreement and for a direction to the opposite party to furnish a Bank guarantee of rupees ten crores till dispute is arbitrated. The case of the petitioner is that it is a registered partnership firm having its registered office at Bhubaneswar. It is engaged in offering advertisement service by means of hoardings, etc.. The opposite party is a company, which runs wholesale trading, marketing of mobile handsets, accessories etc. The opposite party approached the petitioner for rendering advertisement service. A contract was entered into between the parties on 14.7.2017 for a period of two years with a condition that it cannot be cancelled by either of the parties, unless the situation is beyond the control of the service provider. After the contract, the petitioner installed the hoardings at different places and locations and invested huge amount of money by engaging men and material on payment of monthly remuneration. But all of a sudden, the opposite party sent a notice on 14.11.2017 intimating cancellation of the contract in all 84 locations with effect from 10.11.2017. There is no deficiency in service. Termination of the contract is illegal. With this factual scenario, the petitioner filed an application seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The opposite party filed objection denying the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the petitioner has raised hoardings ignoring the specifications and design. It suffered loss for which the agreement has been terminated with effect from 10.11.2017. The petitioner is not entitled to any monthly rent, since the contract has already been terminated by the opposite party's notice dated 14.11.2017. The petitioner has already been paid for the actual work.