RAWALPINDI THEATRES P LTD Vs. PATANJAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) was presented by Rawalpindi Theaters (Private) Limited petitioner against Shri Patanjal respondent No. 1 and Shri Om Parkash Mehra respondent No. 2, for filing arbitration agreement and referring the dispute to the arbitrator. This petition was allowed by the Commercial Subordinate Judge. An appeal against the above order was filed by the two respondents and the same was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge who dismissed the petition. The petitioner has now approached this Court in revision.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Shri Patanjal respondent No. 1 is the producer of a film entitled "warrant". New Films Corporation of Delhi obtained the distribution and exhibition rights of the aforesaid picture from respondent No. 1. The petitioner claims to have acquired exhibition rights with regard to the aforesaid picture from New Films Corporation under an agreement dated the 25th of January 1961 and to have paid Rs. 15,000 in that connection as advance. Some disputes thereafter arose between the petitioner and New Films Corporation, and according to the rules of Motion Pictures Association, the petitioner claims, the above picture could not be exhibited unless the New Films Corporation paid back Rs. 15,000 to the petitioner. It is stated that respondent No. 1, who was interested in the early release of the picture, deputed respondent No. 2 to approach the petitioner for entering into an arrangement whereby the petitioner's rights could be secured and the picture released for exhibition. Agreement Exhibit P. 5 was then entered into by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 who, according to the petitioner, represented respondent No. 1. The agreement was to the following effect:-

(3.) THE petition was resisted by the respondent and they denied the allegations of the petitioner. It was averred that respondent No 1 was not a party to the agreement and respondent No. 2 had no authority to enter into agreement on behalf of respondent No. 1 The petition on behalf of the petitioner-Company was stated to be not maintainable and in any case it was alleged that the person signing the petition was not competent to do so. The existence of the arbitration agreement was also denied, Plea was also taken that serious allegations of fraud had been made by the petitioner-Company against the respondents in a criminal complaint and, therefore, the matter be not referred to arbitration.