Msm v Wsg Bom Hc 2010 [Before Sc Overruling]

7/25/2019 Msm v Wsg Bom Hc 2010 [Before Sc Overruling]

1/61

UPA 1 appeal-534-10.final

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

APPEAL (LODGING) NO.534 OF 2010IN

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 10! OF 2010IN

SUIT NO.12 OF 2010

MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. )a Company organized under the laws of )Singapore and having its Principal Office )at 5 Tampines Central 6, #02-19 Telepark )Building, Singapore 529482 )Appellant

(Org.Plaintiff)

VERSUS

World Sport Group (Mauritius) Limited )

a Company incorporated under the laws )of Mauritius (registered number 017684C1/GBL) )with its registered address at 308 James Court )St. Denis Street, Port Louis, Mauritius )Respondents

(Org.Defendant)

Mr. Dushyant Dave, Senior Avo!ate, a" Mr.Anil Menon, Mr.$i%ay&anhi, Mr.San%ay 'u(ar, Mr. Ashish Prasa, Ms.Su(itri 'harae

an Mr.)a*ve Saant i"+ M"s Anil Menon Asso!iates for theAppellant.

Dr. A+hishe Manu Sin*hvi, Mr.Aspi hinoy an Mr... /hatt,Senior Avo!ates, a" Mr. al Anhyaru%ina, Mr.Anu+hav Sin*hvi,Mr.aiveer Sher*ill, Mr. )oo )oy, Mr.Suhas ul2apurar,Mr.isha aarni, Mr.o*esh haa, Mr.Ashutosh Sa(patan Mr.$ineet Shrivastava i"+ M"s. e*a*ris Partners for the)esponents.


2/61


CORAM " MOHIT S. SHAH# C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHI$ARI# J.

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 18TH AUGUST 2010JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010

JUDGMENT : (PER CHIEF JUSTICE)

his appeal is ire!te a*ainst the %u*(ent an orer ate

7thAu*ust 6010 of the learne Sin*le u*e is(issin* oti!e of Motion

o.1807 of 6010 of the appellant-plaintiff in Suit o.1868 of 6010. /y

the sai oti!e of Motion, the appellant-MSM Satellite 9Sin*apore: Pte

t. 9hereinafter referre to as the ;plaintiff< or ;Sony:.

6.he suit !a(e to +e file +y the appellant-plaintiff on 30thune 6010

upon the efenant-Mauritius !o(pany issuin* noti!e ate 68th

une

6010 to the plaintiff-Sony for invoin* ar+itration uner the ar+itration

!lause in the a*ree(ent +eteen the parties ate 65thMar!h 6007 title

as ;the Dee for the Provision of ?a!ilitation Servi!es< 9hereinafter

referre to as ;?a!ilitation Dee< for short:. Uner the ?a!ilitation

Dee, plaintiff-Sony as to pay the su( of )s.465 !rores to the

efenant-Mauritius !o(pany, out of hi!h )s.165 !rores as alreaypai +y Sony to the Mauritius !o(pany in three install(ents.


3/61


3. he plaintiff@s !ase in +rief as that

3.1 ?or +roa!astin* (at!hes of the >nian Pre(ier ea*ue9>P: /oar for ri!et ontrol of >nia 9;/>< for short: ha floate

teners an the =orl Sports &roup ha on the tener to *lo+al (eia

ri*hts. Bn anuary 61, 6008, /> entere into Meia )i*hts i!ense

A*ree(ent 9M)A: ith =S& 9>nia: for >P till 601C for a su( of )s.

658 !rores 9US E 46 (illion:. Bn the sa(e ay i.e. on anuary 61,

6008, /> an plaintiff-Sony entere into M)A for the >nian

Su+!ontinent (eia ri*hts till 601C for )s.6603.6 !rores 9US E 550.8

(illion:.

3.6 Bn 14thMar!h 6007, /> uner Mr. alit Moi ter(inate

the M)A ate 61stanuary 6008 ith plaintiff-Sony. Fen!e, plaintiff-

Sony file Se!tion 7 petition uner the Ar+itration an on!iliation A!t,

177 9hereinafter referre to as ;Ar+itration A!t uner Mr. alit Moi entere into a

ne M)A ith efenant-Mauritius !o(pany at 3.00 a.( on 15th

Mar!h 6007. he /> uner Mr. alit Moi an efenant-Mauritius

!o(pany i(presse upon the plaintiff-Sony that all the >nian su+-

!ontinental ri*hts ere *iven to the efenant-Mauritius !o(pany an

that sin!e the Mauritius !o(pany ha no +roa!astin* !hannel of its

on, it as *iven seventy to hours to fin a su+-li!ensee fro( 15th

Mar!h 6007 hen /> uner Mr.alit Moi entere into the a*ree(ent

ith the Mauritius !o(pany. /> uner Mr.alit Moi eGtene the

ealine of seventy to hours to fin a su+-li!ensee +y the Mauritius

!o(pany +y another seventy to hours hi!h ealine as thus to


4/61


eGpire +y 3.00 p.(. on 64th Mar!h 6007. Bn 63r Mar!h 6007, this

ourt e!line interi( in%un!tion in favour of plaintiff-Sony on the

*roun that the /> ha alreay entere into an a*ree(ent ith theMauritius !o(pany on 15thMar!h 6007.

3.3 Sin!e this ourt va!ate the a-interi( stay an e!line

in%un!tion, Mr.alit Moi issue e-(ails statin* that /> ha entere

into a ne a*ree(ent ith Mauritius !o(pany an anyone intereste in

+roa!astin* ri*hts shoul !onta!t Mauritius !o(pany. >n this

+a!*roun, ne*otiations too pla!e +eteen plaintiff-Sony an the

Mauritius !o(pany throu*h their representatives Mr.Anre &eor*iou

an Mr.$enu air ho ere the !o((on Dire!tors of the Mauritius

!o(pany an the >nian !o(pany !alle =orls Sport &roup in >nia.

he sai representatives of the Mauritius !o(pany reiterate that the

Mauritius !o(pany ha unfettere ri*hts for the >nian su+-!ontinent.

hey also represente to Plaintiff-Sony that +y virtue of the M)A

+eteen /> an the Mauritius !o(pany, the Mauritius !o(pany ha

the reHuisite (eia ri*hts hi!h it !oul relinHuish to fa!ilitate the

a!Huisition of (eia ri*hts ire!tly fro( /> an that the ri*hts arisin*

out of the a*ree(ent +eteen /> an efenant Mauritius !o(pany

!oul +e ter(inate an that thereafter plaintiff-Sony !an ire!tly enter

a*ree(ent ith /> to a!Huire >nian su+-!ontinental (eia ri*hts to

the >P.

3.4 Bn the +asis of the a+ove representation (ae +y />

o((issioner Mr.alit Moi an the !o((on Dire!tors of the

Mauritius !o(pany an the >nian !o(pany 9=orl Sport &roup >nia

9Pvt.: t.:, the folloin* ne a*ree(ents ate 65thMar!h 6010 ere

entere into


5/61


9i: Dee of ter(ination +eteen =S& 9>nia: an plaintiff-

Sony in ter(inatin* the Bption Dee of 61

st

anuary 6008I

9ii: /> throu*h Mr.alit (oi an plaintiff-Sony for ne

M)A for >nian ri*htsI

9iii: Defenant Mauritius !o(pany an plaintiff-Sony entere

into a ?a!ilitation Dee uner hi!h the plaintiff-Sony as

reHuire to pay )s.465 !rores to the Mauritius !o(pany for

the Mauritius !o(pany havin* fa!ilitate the plaintiff-Sony

in *ettin* +a! the >nian Su+!ontinent Meia ri*hts hi!h

the plaintiff-Sony alreay ha fro( /> uner the

a*ree(ent ate 61st anuary 6008 hi!h a*ree(ent as

purportely res!ine +y /> throu*h Mr.alit Moi on

14th Mar!h 6007 an therefore the plaintiff-Sony ha no

other alternative +ut to enter into a*ree(ent to *et those

ri*hts +a! throu*h the Mauritius !o(pany. ?or this

plaintiff-Sony ha to a*ree to pay /> )s.6603.6 !rores

9US E 550.8 (illion: for a!Huirin* the >nian Su+!ontinent

Meia )i*hts upto the year 601C.

9iv:/> throu*h Mr.alit Moi entere into another a*ree(ent

ith =S& 9>nia: for =orl =ie Meia )i*hts 9eG!luin*

>nian Su+!ontinent: for )s.658 !rores 9US E 46 (illion:.

Bpen a*ree(ent also ha a !ross-evelop(ent a!t 96C.5:

hi!h !onte(plate issue of ter(ination noti!e if the

plaintiff-Sony faile to !o(ply ith the pay(ent"+an

*uarantee reHuire(ent uner the ?a!ilitation Dee.


6/61

UPA appeal-534-10.final

3.5 Bn si*nin* of the aforesai a*ree(ents on Mar!h 65, 6007,

Mr. alit '. Moi sent an e-(ail !on*ratulatin* ne eal +eteenplaintiff-Sony an the =orl Sport &roup.

4. he *ist of the plaintiff@s !ase, as ar*ue at the hearin* of

the appeal is to +e foun in para*raphs 17 to 66 of the plaint. >t is,

therefore, ne!essary to set out the sa(e ver+ati(. Para*raphs 17 to 66 of

the Plaint rea as uner -

;17. he Plaintiff a*ree to pay the /> the eGa!ta(ount as ri*hts fee hi!h as suppose to +e pai +ythe Defenant uner the =S&M-M)A ate 15thMar!h, 6007 an the Plaintiff as (ae to +elieve thatthe Plaintiff as payin* the fa!ilitation fees uner theDee to the Defenant for it havin* relinHuishe its

Meia )i*hts uner the Purporte M)A, in favour ofthe Plaintiff. he pay(ent o+li*ation of the Plaintiff tothe efenant uner the Dee as further safe*uarevie !lause 10.4 in the MSMS-M)A ate 65thMar!h, 6007 +eteen the Plaintiff an /> hi!h thePlaintiff as infor(e as ne!essary as the ri*hts oulnot have a!!rue to the Plaintiff otherise.

60. Foever, infor(ation re!ently re!eive fro(/> after suspension of the >P o((issioner,in!luin* letters an other !orresponen!e as ell as!ertain a*ree(ents, unnon to an unavaila+le to thePlaintiff at the relevant ti(e of eGe!ution of the Dee,reveal that Defenant has frauulently inu!e thePlaintiff into eGe!utin* the Dee +y suppressin* the fa!tthat the Meia )i*hts for(in* su+%e!t (atter of theMSMS-M)A ate 65th Mar!h, 6007 ha in fa!treverte to /> an that as on ate of Dee, theDefenant i not hol any of the ri*hts hatsoever to

the >nian Su+-!ontinent (eia ri*hts of the >P.


7/61

UPA C appeal-534-10.final

61. Durin* the >P season 3 i.e. in April 6010 a!ontroversy erupte in the /> re*arin* the alle*eron* oin*s of the o((issioner an various !har*es

ere levelle a*ainst hi( +y the /> ho reportelyissue sho !ause noti!es to Mr. alit '. Moi 9theo((issioner:, /> enie any nole*e a+out theDee an the fees a*ree to +e pai +y the Plaintiff tothe Defenant there uner in eG!han*e for the DefenantrelinHuishin* its Meia )i*hts for the >nian su+!ontinent in favour of the Plaintiff.

66. he /> has issue a sho !ause noti!e to Mr.alit '. Moi inter alia alle*in* that

J9a: =S& 9Mauritius: Pvt. t., appears to have+een !hosen a*ainst =S& 9>nia: Pvt. t., to enterinto ithin the C6 hour valiity !ontra!t ate15.3.6007. Sin!e in any !ase this !ontra!t as +y(utual e!ision never to +e i(ple(ente an =S&9Mauritius: Pvt. t., as (eant to +e a !onuit forre!eipt of J?a!ilitation ?eeJ. =S& 9Mauritius: Pvt.t., as totally unnon entity an no o!u(ents

are availa+le on re!or to sho that this entityHualifie the !riteria uner lause 6.4 of the >.

9+: he entire eGer!ise of havin* =S& 9Mauritius:Pvt. t., as a i!ensee of (eia )i*hts ith ano+li*ation to su+ li!ense ithin C6 hours appears to+e ruse to +ait SB to (at!h a pra!ti!ally noneGistin* an +o*us +i. >nstea of *oin* for a freshtener pro!ess on ter(ination of the =S& ontra!t,

you have taen upon yourself to ne*otiate ith sele!tparties ithout even noin* the value of theproperty +elon*in* to /> only to ena+le thepay(ent of J?a!ilitation ?eeJ +y Sony.J

he Plaintiff is no *iven to unerstan +y the /> thatMr. Moi in his response to the alle*ations (ae +y/> has not referre to the Purporte M)A.J

9e(phasis supplie:


8/61


5. he plaintiff thereafter referre to the !orresponen!e

+eteen the /> an the representatives of the plaintiff-Sony ith the

Presient of the /> on 65

th

April, 6010, 30

th

May 6010, 14

th

une6010, et!. >n vie of the a+ove evelop(ents, on 65th une 6010,

plaintiff-Sony file a Suit 9Suit 9o*in*: o.1076 of 6010: a*ainst the

efenant-Mauritius !o(pany i.e. 91: =orl Sport &roup 9Mauritius:

t., 96: =orl Sport &roup 9>nia: Pvt. t. An 93: /oar of ontrol

for ri!et in >nia 9/>: prayin* for a e!laration that the ?a!ilitation

Dee ate 65thMar!h 6007 +eteen plaintiff-Sony an efenant o.1-

Mauritius !o(pany as ille*al, null an voi, not +inin* upon an not

enfor!ea+le a*ainst Sony an that no a(ounts ere ue an paya+le

uner the sai Dee +y plaintiff-Sony to the Mauritius !o(pany. he

plaintiff also praye for per(anent in%un!tion to restrain /> fro(

issuin* any ter(ination noti!e a*ainst plaintiff-Sony on the +asis of the

Meia )i*hts i!ense A*ree(ent +eteen /> an =S& 9>nia:. he

plaintiff also praye for a e!ree a*ainst the Mauritius !o(pany for a

su( of )s.14C !rores alon* ith further interest at the rate of 1K on the

prin!ipal a(ount of )s.165 !rores. he plaintiff also praye for interi(

relief to restrain /> fro( issuin* any ter(ination noti!e a*ainst the

plaintiff on the +asis of any a*ree(ent alon* ith /> an Mauritius

!o(pany or on the +asis of any a*ree(ent ate 65th Mar!h 6007

+eteen /> an =S& 9>nia:. he a+ove Suit !a(e to +e file +y the

plaintiff-Sony a*ainst the a+ove three efenants on 65thune 6010 an

noti!e thereof as serve upon the efenants on 6thune 6010. =hen

the oti!e of Motion in the sai Suit !a(e up for hearin* +efore the

learne Sin*le u*e on 68thune 6010, the learne !ounsel for />

state that /> oul not ter(inate the M)A a*ree(ent ate 65th

Mar!h 6007 +eteen /> an the plaintiff urin* penen!y of the

oti!e of Motion an the (atter as a%ourne to 1thAu*ust 6010.


9/61


. Foever, after filin* of the a+ove referre Suit, the plaintiff

as serve ith a !opy of the Mauritius !o(pany@s letter ate 68

th

une6010 aresse to the >nternational ha(+er of o((er!e en!losin* the

reHuest of the Mauritius !o(pany for ar+itration as !onte(plate uner

the ?a!ilitation Dee. he Mauritius !o(pany ini!ate that it as

seein* an aar in the folloin* ter(s

J38. he lai(ant sees an aar in the folloin*ter(s

9a: a e!laration that the )es!ission oti!eissue +y the )esponent is invali an ithouteffe!tI

9+: a e!laration that the ?a!ilitation Deeentere into +y the lai(ant an the )esponent isvali an enfor!ea+le an that the ri*hts an

o+li*ations !ontaine therein !ontinue in full for!eI

9!: a e!laration that ea!h an every ter( in the?a!ilitation Dee is vali an enfor!ea+le an!ontinues in full for!eI

9: a e!laration that the lai(ant is entitle toeep the su( of )s.165 !rores +ein* the su(spreviously pai +y the )esponent to the lai(ant

uner the provisions of the ?a!ilitationDeeI

9e: an orer that the )esponent pay to thelai(ant all su(s ue an paya+le pursuant to the?a!ilitation Dee 9i.e. +alan!e of )s.300 !rores:I

9f: !osts of this ar+itrationI an

9*: any other relief or re(ey that the ri+unalee( fit.J


10/61


C. he !ase of plaintiff-Sony in the se!on suit file +efore the

learne Sin*le u*e, fro( hi!h the present appeal arises, is that upon

+e!o(in* aare of the ourt pro!eein*s initiate +y the plaintiff +y

filin* the first suit on 65thune 6010, ith a vie to frustrate the sa(e,

instea of parti!ipatin* in the pro!eein*s +efore this ourt, the

efenant Mauritius !o(pany has approa!he the > 9>nternational

ourt for Ar+itration: on 68thune 6010 ith a reHuest for ar+itration

!ontainin* reliefs hi!h are ire!tly an spe!ifi!ally in issue +efore this

ourt in the >nian pro!eein*s. Plaintiff-Sony further !ontene that

there is no other ourt hi!h (ay +e !onstrue as !ourts of Lnatural

%urisi!tion sin!e no part of the !ause of a!tion in !onne!tion ith the

present ispute has arisen outsie >nia. he Sin*apore Ar+itral ri+unal

is not the appropriate or !onvenient foru( to resolve the alle*e ispute

+eteen the plaintiff an the efenant. ?urther(ore, the alle*e ispute

+eteen the efenant an the plaintiff is not an inepenent an

isolate ispute +eteen the to parties. >t is intri!ately an insepara+ly

!onne!te ith other (aterial issues hi!h involve other parties also

su!h as =S&> AD /> an are part of the >nian pro!eein*s. he

Sin*apore pro!eein*s a*ainst the plaintiff is a *ross a+use of the

%ui!ial pro!ess an is an atte(pt to harass the plaintiff +y en*a*in* it in

a protra!te an eGpensive le*al +attle in Sin*apore an in!ur heavy

eGpenses hi!h are !learly avoia+le. A(ittely, no part of the

evien!e (aterial to the ispute is to +e foun at Sin*apore an none of

the itness relevant to the issues are at Sin*apore. >t is the settle le*al

position that hen there are serious alle*ations of frau or here the

ispute reHuires etaile eGa(ination of itnesses, the sa(e are not

suita+le for ar+itration an have to +e ne!essarily e!ie +y ourts.onsierin* the nature of alle*ations hi!h the plaintiff has raise


11/61


a*ainst the efenant, hi!h is +oun to ne!essitate etaile evien!e

an !ross eGa(ination of parties, it is apparent that even assu(in*,

ithout a(ittin* that the ar+itration !lause in the ee survive theres!ission on the *roun of frau, it is only the ourts hi!h oul have

%urisi!tion to e!ie the ispute an havin* re*ar to the fa!t that this

ourt is the ourt of inherent an natural %urisi!tion, the ispute oul

+e e!ie solely an eG!lusively +y this ourt in the >nian pro!eein*s

hi!h are prior in point of ti(e to the Sin*apore pro!eein*s.

8. he a+ove oti!e of Motion in the se!on suit !a(e to +e

oppose +y the affiavit in reply file +y the !onstitute attorney of

efenant-Mauritius !o(pany. he efenant has o+%e!te to the

territorial %urisi!tion of this ourt to entertain the suit an has also

!ontene that hatever isputes the plaintiff has raise !an +e raise in

the ar+itration pro!eein*s. he efenant has su+(itte as uner -

;4. > su+(it that it is the a(itte an unisputeposition that

i. he ?a!ilitation Dee 9as efine herein+elo: is*overne +y an !onstrue in a!!oran!e ith thelas of Nn*lan an =ales ithout re*ar to the!hoi!e of la prin!ipleI

ii. /oth, the Plaintiff an the Defenant are!o(panies outsie the %urisi!tion of this Fon+leourt. he Plaintiff is a !o(pany in!orporate inSin*apore an the Defenant is a !o(panyin!orporate in Mauritius.

iii. All a!tions or pro!eein*s arisin* in !onne!tion

ith, tou!hin* upon or relatin* to the ?a!ilitationDee, the +rea!h thereof an"or the s!ope ofprovision of se!tion relatin* to ar+itration itself


12/61


has +een (anate +y the Plaintiff an theDefenant to +e su+(itte to the > for final an+inin* ar+itration. hus, any (atter for any

a!tion in respe!t of the ?a!ilitation Dee isreHuire to +e referre to ar+itration.

iv. >t is an unispute fa!t that the Defenant hasalreay invoe the ar+itration in a!!oran!e iththe ?a!ilitation Dee an ar+itration pro!eein*shave !o((en!e.

v. Parties at all relevant ti(e ere aie in theiris!ussion an ne*otiation +y eGperts, su!h asattorneys !onversant ith Nn*lish las.

5. > say that the suit is ishonest. > su+(it that thepresent suit is a veGatious pro!eein* an is an a+use ofpro!ess of la. he !hosen foru( is Sin*apore, hi!his the Plaintiffs !ountry of resien!e. /oth parties arenot resient in >nia. Sin*apore is the Plaintiffs on!ountry an !hoi!e. > say that the suit ou*ht to +e

is(isse in li(ine on the folloin* *rouns ea!h ofhi!h is in the alternative an ithout pre%ui!e to theother.

. > su+(it that this Fon+le ourt has no%urisi!tion to entertain or try this suit an"or the suitoes not lie inas(u!h as

a. the Plaintiff has not taen any leave uner lauseO>> of the etters Patent. he Plaintiff an Defenantare +oth resient outsie the %urisi!tion of this Fon+leourt. he Plaintiff eGe!ute the a*ree(ent outsie>nia 9in os An*eles:. e*otiations in relation to theee for provision of fa!ilitation servi!es +ein* NGhi+itJ>J to the plaint 9F%&''%'*+ D,,-), ere partly hel

outsie >nia, (ore parti!ularly ith the Plaintiffslayers ho ere in Nn*lan an the representatives ofthe parties hereto not +ein* ithin the %urisi!tion of this


13/61


Fon+le ourt at all (aterial ti(es. Bn the Plaintiffson shoin*, the hole of the !ause of a!tion has notarisen in Mu(+ai. he pay(ent (ae till ate uner the

?a!ilitation Dee as also (ae +y the Plaintiff outsie>nia an re!eive +y the Defenant outsie >nia, i.e.outsie the %urisi!tion of this Fon+le ourt. hehole of the !ause of a!tion has not arisen ithin the

%urisi!tion of this Fon+le ourt. Sin!e no leave has+een taen uner lause O>>, > su+(it that this suit islia+le to +e is(isse.

+ . the suit is +arre +y laI

!. the plaint is!loses no !ause of a!tion an the suitis lia+le to +e is(isse on a e(urrerIJ

7. At the hearin* of this appeal, the efenant-Mauritius

!o(pany has also sou*ht to *ive its efen!e on (erits an further

su+(itte in para*raph 3C9*: as uner -

J*. >t is su+(itte that any alle*e representation +ythe >P o((issioner on +ehalf of the />,!annot +e attri+uta+le to the Defenant an"or!annot affe!t the Plaintiffs !ontra!t ith theDefenant.

h. he ?a!ilitation Dee spe!ifi!ally reHuires an

re!ites that, at the ti(e hen the Plaintiff!ontra!ts ith />, the Defenant oul notan"or i not have any su+sistin* ri*hts uner its!ontra!t an that su!h ri*hts ere alreayter(inate. he Plaintiff is not !on!erne ithho the Defenants ri*hts uner its !ontra!t!a(e to +e ter(inate or eGtin*uishe.J

10. As alreay ini!ate earlier, the learne Sin*le u*e

is(isse the oti!e of Motion +y holin* that even if the a*ree(ent


14/61


ate 65thMar!h 6007 +eteen the plaintiff an the efenant has +een

res!ine +y the plaintiff, the ar+itration !lause survives an that all the

!ontentions sou*ht to +e raise in the suit !an +e raise +efore thear+itral tri+unal.

11. At the hearin* of this appeal, Mr.Dave, learne senior

!ounsel for the plaintiff-Sony, has su+(itte that the plaintiff as

alreay *iven all the (eia ri*hts for >P uner the a*ree(ent ate 61st

anuary 6008 an on 14th Mar!h 6007 Mr. alit Moi, the >P

o((issioner a!tin* for /> ha ter(inate the a*ree(ent ate 61st

anuary 6008 an purporte to !onfer those ri*hts on the efenant

Mauritius !o(pany in orer to see that the plaintiff is reHuire to

approa!h the Mauritius !o(pany an only after a*reein* to pay the

fa!ilitation fee to the Mauritius !o(pany to the tune of )s.465 !rores,

the plaintiff is a+le to *et +a! its ri*hts uner the a*ree(ent ate 61st

anuary 6008. >t is su+(itte that /> has alreay ini!ate in its

letter ate 30thMay 6010 to plaintiff-Sony that efenant Mauritius

!o(pany as a totally unnon entity an as not (eant to +e a

!onuit for re!eipt of fa!ilitation fee. Mr. Dave has also invite our

attention to letter ate 30thMay 6010 of /> to plaintiff-Sony i.e.

MSM Satellite 9Sin*apore: as uner -

J=e rite ith re*ar to the Meia )i*hts i!en!ea*ree(ent ate 65th Mar!h 6007 eGe!ute +y you ansi*ne +y Mr. alit ' Moi purportely on +ehalf of/>.

>t has !o(e to our attention that you have entere into an

a*ree(ent on the sa(e ay i.e., 65th Mar!h 6007 ithM"s. =orl Sports &roup 9Mauritius: t., herein youhave a*ree to pay a su( of )s.465 rores toars


15/61


Jfa!ilitation feeJ for servi!es supposely renere +y=S& Mauritius t. to ena+le you to o+tain the !ontra!tfor Meia )i*hts for the >nian Su+!ontinent +y (eans

of the a*ree(ent referre a+ove.

ou are here+y infor(e that /> is not aare of anyfa!ilitation servi!es provie +y =orl Sports &roup9Mauritius: t. =orl Sports &roup 9Mauritius: t.,ha no role to play in the a*ree(ent si*ne +y you ithMr. alit 'u(ar Moi for tain* the >nian su+-!ontinent ri*hts. Monies eGpane +y you for the >nianSu+!ontinent ri*hts referre a+ove shoul ri*htfully +epai to /> alone an no other party. ou aretherefore reHueste to re(it all a(ounts ue an paya+leto =S& 9Mauritius: t., to the />.

=e are sure that MSM Satelite 9Sin*apore:s favoura+lee!ision in this re*ar oul help the relationship+eteen /> an MSM Satelite 9Sin*apore: *rostron*er in the years to !o(e.

hanin* you

ours faithfully

S"-. SrinivasanFon. Se!retaryJ.

16. After referrin* to the a+ove o!u(ents at the hearin*,

Mr.Dave has vehe(ently su+(itte that the ispute hi!h has +een

referre +y efenant-Mauritius !o(pany purports to +e a ispute a+out

non-i(ple(entation of the ?a!ilitation Dee ate 65thMar!h 6007, that

it is not an inepenent or isolate ispute +eteen the plaintiff an the

efenant +ut it is epenent an insepara+ly !onne!te ith other

(aterial issues hi!h involve other parties also, su!h as, /> an=S& 9>nia: Pvt. t. an all these isputes are alreay su+%e!t (atter


16/61


of the first suit hi!h as file +efore this ourt on 65thune 6010. >t

as only after the noti!e of the sai first suit as first serve upon the

efenant on 6

th

une 6010 that as a !ounter +last, the efenantapproa!he > invoin* the ar+itration !lause in the a*ree(ent ate

65thMar!h 6007 hi!h ha alreay +een res!ine +y the plaintiff.

>t is su+(itte that hen the spe!ifi! plea of the plaintiff-

Sony is a+out the frau an the non-availa+ility ith the efenant-

Mauritius !o(pany of any ri*hts alle*ely o+taine +y the efenant-

Mauritius !o(pany fro( /> then a!tin* throu*h Mr.alit '. Moi,

the ar+itrators !annot *o into that ispute hen /> is not a party to

the ar+itration pro!eein*s hi!h the efenant has referre to >.

Stron* relian!e is pla!e on the folloin* e!isions

9i: Venture Global Engineering vs Satyam Computer

Services Ltd. and another, (200) 4 SCC 1!0.

13. >n reply, Dr. A+hishe Sin*hvi has su+(itte that Se!tion 5

of the Ar+itration A!t spe!ifi!ally provies that notithstanin*

anythin* !ontaine in any other la for the ti(e +ein* in for!e, no

%ui!ial authority shall intervene eG!ept here so provie in this Part.

Se!tion 1 also provies that the ar+itral tri+unal (ay rule on its on

%urisi!tion, in!luin* rulin* on any o+%e!tions ith respe!t to the

eGisten!e or valiity of the ar+itration a*ree(ent an that an ar+itration

!lause hi!h for(s part of a !ontra!t shall +e treate as an a*ree(ent

inepenent of the other ter(s of the !ontra!t an that even a e!ision

+y the ar+itral tri+unal that the !ontra!t is null an voi, shall not entail

ipso jure the invaliity of the ar+itration !lause. >t is su+(itte that

hatever o+%e!tions the plaintiff has a+out (aintaina+ility of the


17/61

UPA 1C appeal-534-10.final

ar+itration pro!eein*s or a+out the %urisi!tion of the ar+itrators, !an +e

raise +efore the ar+itral tri+unal an the very s!he(e of the A!t that

re%e!tion of su!h o+%e!tions !an only +e !hallen*e +y (ain* anappli!ation for settin* asie an ar+itral aar uner Se!tion 34 of the

A!t shos the !lear restri!tive intent a*ainst the %ui!ial intervention.

14. >t is further su+(itte +y Dr. Sin*hvi that the so-!alle frau

is nothin* +ut a false alle*ation (ae +y the plaintiff. he referen!e to

the a*ree(ent ate 63rMar!h 6007 in the a*ree(ent ate 65thMar!h

6007 +eteen the plaintiff an the efenant as only a typo*raphi!al

(istae an even in the press state(ent issue +y the plaintiff at NGhi+it

;'t is

su+(itte that su!h a typo*raphi!al (istae in the a*ree(ent ate 65th

Mar!h 6007 +y referrin* to the sai a*ree(ent as (erely ate 63r

Mar!h 6007 instea of a*ree(ent ate 15thMar!h 6007 +eteen />

an the efenant !an never a(ount to frau.

15. >t is further su+(itte +y Dr. Sin*hvi that as per the settle

le*al position, even in a !ase here alle*ations of frau are (ae, the

a!!user !annot prevent the a!!use fro( *oin* for ar+itration an that it

is only the privile*e of the a!!use to plea that he oul lie to have

the alle*ations of frau a*ainst hi( trie in a ourt of la instea of

+ein* trie +efore the ar+itral tri+unal. >n support of this !ontention,

referen!e is (ae to the o+servations (ae +y the ApeG ourt inN.

Radhakrishnan v aestro Engineers and others, (2010) 1 SCC /2#

herein the ApeG !ourt Huote the folloin* o+servations in !bdul

"adir Shamsuddin #ubere v adhav $rabhakar %ak, AIR 1!2 SC

40 "


18/61


;1C. here is no ou+t that here seriousalle*ations of frau are (ae a*ainst a party hois !har*e ith frau esires that the (atter

shoul +e trie in open !ourt, that oul +e asuffi!ient !ause for the !ourt not to orer anar+itration a*ree(ent to +e file an not to (aethe referen!e.n the present ispute fa!e +y us, theappellant ha (ae serious alle*ations a*ainst theresponents alle*in* the( to !o((it (alpra!ti!esin the a!!ount +oos an (anipulate the finan!esof the partnership fir(, hi!h, in our opinion,!annot +e properly ealt ith +y the ar+itrator. As

su!h, the Fi*h ourt as %ustifie in is(issin* thepetition of the appellant to refer the (atter to anar+itrator.......nian su+-!ontinent ri*hts. Monies eGpane +y you for the>nian Su+!ontinent ri*hts referre a+ove shoulri*htfully +e pai to /> alone an no other party.ou are therefore reHueste to re(it all a(ounts uean paya+le to =S& 9(auritius: t., to the />.

=e are sure that MSM Satellite 9Sin*apore:sfavoura+le e!ision in this re*ar oul help the


30/61


relationship +eteen /> an MSM Satellite9Sin*apore: *ro stron*er in the year to !o(e.

hanin* you

ours faithfullyS"-

SrinivasanFon. Se!retaryJ

67. he a+ove letter ate 30thMay 6010 as ritten +y />

to the plaintiff after /> initiate a!tion a*ainst its >P o((issioner

Mr. alit Moi to ho( it has alreay issue sho !ause noti!e an in

one of those sho !ause noti!e, there are spe!ifi! alle*ations to the

folloin* effe!t 9as Huote in para*raph 66 of the plaint:

;9a: =S& 9Mauritius: Pvt. t., appears to have +een

!hosen a*ainst =S& 9>nia: Pvt. t., to enter intoithin the C6 hour valiity !ontra!t ate 15-3-6007.Sin!e in any !ase this !ontra!t as +y (utual e!isionnever to +e i(ple(ente an =S& 9Mauritius: Pvt.t., as (eant to +e a !onuit for re!eipt of;?a!ilitation ?ee.

9+: he entire eGer!ise of havin* =S& 9Mauritius:Pvt. t., as a i!ensee of (eia )i*hts ith ano+li*ation to su+ li!ense ithin C6 hours appears to +eruse to +ait SB to (at!h a pra!ti!ally non eGistin*an +o*us +i. >nstea of *oin* for a fresh tenerpro!ess on ter(ination of the =S& ontra!t, you havetaen upon yourself to ne*otiate ith sele!t partiesithout even noin* the value of the property+elon*in* to /> only to ena+le the pay(ent of

;?a!ilitation ?ee< +y Sony.


31/61


30. he appellant-plaintiffs reply ate 6nune, 6010 to />

reas as uner -

;une 6, 6010

o

Mr.Shashan Manohar 9Presient:"Mr.. Srinivasan 9Fonorary Se!retary:he /oar of ontrol ?or ri!et in >nia 9L/>@:=anhee Staiu(, Mu(+ai.

Dear Sir,

=e rite further to the (eetin* our representatives haith you on 30th May, 6010 an in response to yourletter of the sa(e ate.

ou have (ae a representation to us at the (eetin* +yay of inter alia your a+ove letter, an o!u(entsshon to us at the (eetin* an in parti!ular the letter

ate on or a+out 64

th

Mar!h, 6007 fro( =orl Sports&roup Mauritius 9L=S&@: to /> an the letter ateon or a+out 64th"65thMar!h, 6007 fro( /> to =S& as+riefly an partially shon to us, that on or a+out 64th

Mar!h, 6007, the >nian Su+ ontinent Meia )i*htsha alreay reverte to /> an !onseHuently on 65thMar!h 6007 there eGiste no Meia )i*hts ith =S&that oul ena+le the( to provie fa!ilitationservi!es"relinHuish(ent of ri*hts in favour of MSMSatellite 9Sin*apore: Pte t 9LMSMS@:. A!!orin* toyou on the +asis of su!h (isrepresentation =S&inu!e MSMS to a*ree to pay (onies uner the Deefor he Provision of ?a!ilitation Servi!es ate 65th

Mar!h, 6007 9LDee@: hi!h a(ount a!tually +elon*eto the /> an hen!e, you !on!lue that no a(ountas lafully paya+le +y MSMS to =S& uner theaforesai Dee. A!!orin*ly you have !alle uponMSMS to pay over the +alan!e fa!ilitation fee to />.

MSMS ishes to state in response that it has taen aserious note of your representation an !onsierin* the*ravity involve an the ra(ifi!ations thereof, MSMS


32/61


has +een avise +y its !ounsel that MSMS shoulfavora+ly !onsier />@s e(an for the +alan!ea(ount of the fa!ilitation fees a(ount to )s.300 rores

as per anneGe pay(ent s!heule 9AnneGure A: su+%e!tto /> fulfillin* the folloin* reHuests

1. /> ill provie MSMS ith !opies of therelevant !orresponen!e ith =S& in!luin* the lettersate 64th Mar!h an 65thMar!h, 6007 as +riefly anpartially shon to MSMS urin* the aforesai (eetin*an also the a*ree(ents ate 15than 63rMar!h, 6007+eteen /> an =S& alon* ith any other relevanto!u(ents in support of your letter ate 30th May,6010I

6. /> eGpressly !onfir(s that the Meia )i*htsi!ense A*ree(ent ate 65thMar!h 6007 9LM)A@: isvali an +inin* an shall +e a!te upon +y the partiesin *oo faith an in !o(plian!e thereofI

3. /> a*rees to elete lause 10.4 of the M)Aan also to enter into su!h other a*ree(ents as (ay +e

(utually a*ree ith MSMS to (ore fully !arry out theter(s of the unerstanin* set out hereinI

4. >f any pro!eein*s are initiate a*ainst MSMS+efore a !o(petent !ourt"authority in relation to anypay(ents that (ay +e (ae to /> pursuant to itsa+ove letter of 30 May 6010, /> ill in *oo faitha!tively assist an support MSMS in esta+lishin* itsefen!e, an

5. he unerstanin* as set out herein an in anyfuture unerstanin* in this respe!t shall +e treate instri!t !onfien!e +y +oth parties.

=e loo forar to an early (eetin*.

ours sin!erely,for MSM Satellite 9Sin*apore: Pte t.

S"-a(e Anre 'aplanitle Dire!tor.


33/61


31. >n the a+ove fa!tual +a!*roun, the su+(ission (ae +y

the learne !ounsel for the appellant-plaintiff 9Sony: that the fa!ilitationa*ree(ent is !ontrary to pu+li! poli!y of >nia assu(es ut(ost

i(portan!e. A(ittely, /> is not a party to the ar+itration

pro!eein*s initiate +y the responent- Mauritius !o(pany. /> ill

not have any say in the sai ar+itration pro!eein*s on the footin* that in

vie of the !lauses of the fa!ilitation ee taen +y itself an as there is

an inepenent !ontra!t +eteen the sole plaintiff an the sole efenant

in the se!on suit, *ivin* rise to the present appeal, the ar+itral tri+unal

ill (ae an aar reHuirin* the plaintiff to pay the efenant the

a(ount of )s.300 !rores over an a+ove )s.165 !rores alreay pai +y

the plaintiff. he Huestion is hether su!h an aar ill stan the

s!rutiny on the tou!hstone of pu+li! poli!y of >nia. =hile !onsierin*

the sai Huestion, it oul +e relevant, therefore, to refer to the aforesai

fa!tual +a!*roun.

36. he !ontention of the learne !ounsel for responent-

Mauritius !o(pany that the *roun of frau is availa+le only to the

a!!use an not to the a!!user for avoiin* ar+itration pro!eein*s an

that the efenant-Mauritius !o(pany is the a!!use an the plaintiff is

the a!!user an, therefore, the ar+itral pro!eein*s !annot +e in%un!te

at the instan!e of the plaintiff overloos the fa!t that the a!!usation of

frau is not (erely (ae +y the plaintiff-Sony +ut that plaintiff-Sony is

relyin* on the fa!tu( of a!!usation havin* +een (ae +y /> a*ainst

the then >P o((issioner Mr. alit Moi an the responent-

Mauritius !o(pany. /> has +een hel to +e a +oy is!har*in*

pu+li! fun!tions 9vie/s.0ee 1ele +ilms Ltd. and another vs 2nion o


34/61


&ndia and others, AIR 2005 SC 2//:. >f the a!!usations of frau (ae

+y /> a*ainst Mr. alit Moi an the responent- Mauritius !o(pany

are foun to +e true, it oul +e o+vious that an ar+itral aar ire!tin*the plaintiff-Sony to pay the responent- Mauritius !o(pany any su(

uner the fa!ilitation a*ree(ent oul +e !ontrary to pu+li! poli!y.

33. >t is o+vious that ar+itral tri+unal havin* only to parties

+efore it - the appellant herein an the responent-Mauritius !o(pany,

ill not have any poer to a%ui!ate upon the a!!usations of frau

(ae +y /> a*ainst Mr. alit Moi an the responent- Mauritius

!o(pany. >t, therefore, appears to us that this is one of those rare !ases,

here there are eG!eptional !ir!u(stan!es here an in%un!tion to

restrain an ar+itration (ay +e *rante. his is a !lear !ase here there is

a ris that the ar+itrator (i*ht pro!ee to !onsier the sa(e

%urisi!tional issue hi!h is penin* the e!ision of this !ourt in Suit

9o*in*: o.1701 of 6010 file +y the appellant on 65th une, 6010

a*ainst =S& 9>nia: Pvt. t,, responent- Mauritius !o(pany an the

/>.

34. >n this !onteGt, it ill +e relevant to refer to the provision of

para 6 of the Ar+itration an on!iliation A!t, 177 hi!h provies for

enfor!e(ent of !ertain forei*n aars. Se!tion 45 of the A!t reas as

uner

45. P*, * 67-'&'% %78*'9 * ,, :%',; *%


35/61


the parties to ar+itration, unless it fins that the saia*ree(ent is null an voi, inoperative or in!apa+le of+ein* perfor(e.> thereof.

35. >t is also o+serve +y )ussell on Ar+itration 9enty-hir

Nition-600C: as uner

;C-058 I+67+&'*+; * ,;%'+ %;.>n%un!tions to restrain ar+itrations are, at least inNn*lan, fe an far +eteen an +e!o(in*feer still over ti(e. his is prin!ipally +e!ause

of the a!!eptan!e of the prin!iple that thear+itrator shoul usually eter(ine his on

%urisi!tion an so to restrain an ar+itration +yay of in%un!tion oul +e in!onsistent ith thes!he(e of the Ar+itration A!t 177. Foever,there are eG!eptional !ir!u(stan!es here anin%un!tion to restrain an ar+itration (ay +eo+taine. Su!h an in%un!tion is ifferent innature fro( an in%un!tion *rante in support of

ar+itral pro!eein*s, +ut it is !onvenient to(ention this type of in%un!tion at this sta*e.Su+%e!t to the eGtre(e li(itations on the eGer!iseof the !ourt@s is!retion set out +elo, thepossi+ility of o+tainin* an in%un!tion to restrainthe !ontinuation of ar+itral pro!eein*s !an arisein the folloin* !ases

ase 1 here one party !o((en!es an a!tion +efore the

!ourt a su!!essfully opposes a stay 9hetheruner s.7 or the !ourt@s inherent %urisi!tion: onthe *roun that the ar+itration a*ree(ent is


36/61


invali an the ar+itral pro!eein*s +ase on theinvali a*ree(ent !ontinue in efian!e of the!ourt@s finin*s. his !ase is also liely to !over

situations here the !ourt has e!ie that it,rather than the ar+itrators, (ust e!ie an issue asto the %urisi!tion of the ar+itrators upon a s.7 stayappli!ation havin* +een (ae an here there is aris that the ar+itrators (i*ht pro!ee to !onsierthe sa(e %urisi!tional issue penin* the !ourt@se!ision.< 9e(phasis supplie:

he ourt ill eGer!ise its is!retion to *rant in%un!tionrestrainin* the further !onu!t of an ar+itration only in rare !ases an

even if su!h in%un!tion !oul +e *rante only in rarest of the rare !ases,

this is one su!h rarest of rare !ase.

3. =e have !onsiere the prin!iple lai on +y the ApeG

ourt in Secur &ndustries Ltd. V. Godrej ) #oyce g. Co. Ltd. !ndanother, 96004:3 S 44C. he ApeG ourt i hol in the sai !ase

that ith the appli!a+ility of part-> of the 177 A!t to the eGtent of

%ui!ial intervention in ar+itration is li(ite +y the non-o+stante

provision of se!tion 5 an that the valiity of the pro!eein*s +efore the

ar+itral tri+unal is an issue hi!h the ar+itrat*or an not the ourt !oul

e!ie uner se!tion 1 of the A!t. he ourt, hoever, further

o+serve as uner

;16. he ar*u(ents hi!h have +een raise +efore us+y the learne !ounsel on +ehalf of the responent to alar*e eGtent relate to the (erits of the appellant@s !lai(+efore the oun!il. Favin* re*ar to the s!ope of theauthority of the ar+itral tri+unal uner Se!tion 1, this

is not a (atter hi!h the !ourt !an a%ui!ate upon.>nee it is in!u(+ent on the !ourt to refer the partiesto ar+itration uner Se!tion 891: of the 177 A!t if a


37/61


suit is file in a (atter hi!h is the su+%e!t-(atter of anar+itration a*ree(ent. ?urther(ore, even hile thisHuestion is penin* e!ision +efore a !ourt, the ar+itral

tri+unal (ay pro!ee ith the ar+itration uner Se!tion893: an (ae its aar. he Fi*h ourt !oul not,therefore, have staye the pro!eein*s +efore theoun!il.n so far as the ar+itration an san!tity of su!h a*ree(ents

is !on!erne, relian!e is pla!e upon Se!tion 5 of the Ar+itration an

on!iliation A!t, 177 an also Se!tions 8 an 1 of the A!t. )elian!e

on the other han is pla!e on Se!tion 45 of the A!t on the ors

notithstanin* !ontaine in Part > of the A!t or in oe of ivil

Pro!eure, 1708, the %ui!ial authority shall at the reHuest of one of the

parties or any person !lai(in* throu*h or uner hi( refer the parties to

ar+itration unless he fins that the ar+itration appli!ation is null an

voi, inoperative an in!apa+le of +ein* perfor(e. >n a e!ision

reporte in Eastern ineral ) 1rading !gency vs Steel !uthority o

&ndia, 2000 (3) RAJ 115# it has +een hel that Se!tion 45 appears in Part

>> an therefore it over-ries Part > hi!h in!lues Se!tion 5. herefore,

a %ui!ial authority shall not intervene eG!ept here so provie in this

Part. Se!tion 5 therefore oes not !o(e in the ay of appli!a+ility of

Se!tion 45. Bur attention has also +een invite to the ors ;shalln H7-;*+?; B7'-'+> %+- E+>'+,,'+>

C*+%&;# E,@,+8 E-''*+, pa*e 15C7, the provision has +een

!riti!ise in the folloin* ter(s -

;>t oul +e seen that there has +een a iesprea

(ove(ent +y influential interests involve in thear+itration pro!ess a*ainst !ontrol +y the ourts,supporte +y the (any (oern *overn(ents hoper!eive a pu+li! finan!ial avanta*e in ivertin*liti*ation aay fro( the pu+li! fune %ui!iary intothe privatise se!tor hi!h ar+itration represents.t (ay perhaps +e ae that not only un!orre!te

errors of la, +ut ele(ents of over-!onfien!e, unfairness an

inHuisitorial an o(ineerin* attitues !an +e eGpe!te to in!rease ith

the ithraal of appellate poers an sheltere +y the la! of

pu+li!ity provie +y ar+itrationt is sai that the ourts in Nn*lan have not favoure the

!urtail(ent of poers of the ourt. >t has +een o+serve that re*arin*


39/61


the !orre!t +alan!e of the relationship +eteen international ar+itration

an national ourts, it is i(possi+le to ou+t that at least in so(e

instan!es the intervention of the ourt (ay +e not only per(issi+le +uthi*hly +enefi!ial. 9See Coppee Lavalin S!/NV vs "en3Re Chemicals

and +ertilisers Ltd., (1!!4) 2 A ER 44!. 9e(phasis supplie:

40. Nven in the e!isions that have +een +rou*ht to our noti!e

+y Dr.Sin*hvi, it has +een hel that in !ase of alle*ations of frau an

serious (alpra!ti!es on the part of the parties, su!h a situation !an only

+e settle in ourt throu*h furtheran!e of %ui!ial evien!e +y either

party an su!h a situation !annot +e properly *one into +y the Ar+itrator.

he reason for this appears to +e o+vious.

41. Se!tion 68 of the >nian ontra!t A!t, 18C6 reas thus

;68. A*ree(ents in restraint of le*al pro!eein*s,voi. - Nvery a*ree(ent -

9a: +y hi!h any party thereto is restri!tea+solutely fro( enfor!in* his ri*hts uner or in respe!tof any !ontra!t, +y the usual le*al pro!eein*s in theorinary tri+unals, or hi!h li(its the ti(e ithin

hi!h he (ay thus enfor!e his ri*hts, or

9+: hi!h entin*uishes the ri*hts of any partythereto, or is!har*es any party thereto fro( anylia+ility, uner or in respe!t of any !ontra!t on theeGpiry of a spe!ifie perio so as to restri!t any partyfro( enfor!in* his ri*hts, is voi to that eGtent. ;

46. Nvery a*ree(ent +y hi!h any party thereto is restri!te

a+solutely fro( enfor!in* his ri*hts uner or in respe!t of any !ontra!t,


40/61


+y the usual le*al pro!eein*s in the orinary tri+unals, or hi!h li(its

the ti(e ithin hi!h he (ay enfor!e his ri*hts, is voi to that eGtent.

?urther, Se!tion 63 of the >nian ontra!t A!t,18C6 oul also throso(e li*ht on this aspe!t. >n ol Nn*lish e!isions 1homson vs

Charnock, T.R. 13! (E+>%+-) an other !ases referre in San%iv

)os ontra!t A!t an la relatin* to teners et!., 7thNition, 9pa*e

1473:, it has +een hel that the la oes not allo parties to (ae

!ontra!ts here+y they +ar*ain aay in avan!e the ri*ht to resort to the

ourts for the prote!tion of their ri*hts an the eter(ination of their

lia+ilities. herefore, su!h a*ree(ents hi!h tae aay ri*hts of parties

to approa!h !ivil ourt even hen the issues involve pertain to frau

oul not only +e hit +y the afore(entione provisions +ut oul +e

!ontrary to pu+li! poli!y as ell.

43. >n %il and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs S!4 $ipes

Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 22!, the Supre(e ourt ha an o!!asion to

!onsier the a(+it an s!ope of Se!tion 34 of the Ar+itration an

on!iliation A!t, 177 an parti!ularly Se!tion 3496:9+:9ii:. he

Supre(e ourt hel that the eGpression ;pu+li! poli!y< oes not a(it

of a pre!ise efinition an (ay vary fro( *eneration to *eneration an

fro( ti(e to ti(e. he Supre(e ourt relie upon its earlier rulin* in

the !ase of Central &nland 4ater 1ransport Corporation Limited and

another vs #rojo Nath Ganguli and another, (1!) 3 SCC 15, an

further e!ision in the !ase ofRenusagar $o5er Co. Ltd. vs General

Electric Co., 1!!4 S7:: (1) SCC 44. he Supre(e ourt therefore

o+serve that this eGpression is not stati!. >n !onstruin* this eGpression,

the u*es (ust loo +eyon the narro fiels of past pre!eents.

herefore, the o+%e!t in insertin* Se!tion 63 an Se!tion 68 in the


41/61


>nian ontra!t A!t, 18C6 fro( hi!h assistan!e !oul +e ran,

appears to +e that a stipulation that no a!tion shoul +e +rou*ht in a

ourt of la for enfor!in* the ri*hts uner a !ontra!t oul +e voi.Si(ilarly, an a*ree(ent to refer ar+itration, ifferen!es that (ay arise

uner a !ontra!t, oes not oust the %urisi!tion of the ourt an is no +ar

to a!tion, +ut (ay +e a *roun for stayin* a!tion uner the Ar+itration

A!t. >n Nn*lan, it has +een hel that it oul +e a*ainst the poli!y to

*ive effe!t to an a*ree(ent that a ri*ht shoul not +e enfor!e throu*h

the (eiu( of the orinary tri+unals. 9See Chelmsord L.C. &n Scott vs

Liverpool ,Corporation-, 1!5 L.J.C. 235 0arniko5 vs Roth((1!22)

2 $'+>; B,+&8 4/:.

44. Applyin* these tests to the fa!ts of the present !ase oul

sho that the appellant-plaintiff institute a Suit in this ourt a*ainst the

efenant on the +asis that it is or*ani2e uner the las of Sin*apore.

>t ons an operates !a+le an satellite television !hannels in!luin* the

popular SN MAO !hannel. he efenant is a !o(pany in!orporate

in Mauritius !arryin* on +usiness as a sports (aretin* a*en!y.

45. he /oar of ontrol for ri!et in >nia 9for short

;/>nian

Pre(ier ea*ue 9for short ;>PP. After settin* out the for(at of the >P it is ur*e that *lo+al

(eia ri*hts an >nian su+-!ontinent internet an (o+ile ri*hts

pertainin* to >P ere *rante +y /> to =orl Sport &roup >nia

9Pvt.: t., referre to as Q=S&>< vie an >nian Pre(ier ea*ue Meia

)i*hts i!ense A*ree(ent 9referre to in the plaint as =S&>-M)A

entere into the >nian Pre(ier ea*ue Meia )i*hts i!enseA*ree(ent hi!h is referre to as MSMS-M)A a*ree(ent. Uner

this a*ree(ent, the /> *rante eG!lusive an non-eG!lusive (eia

ri*hts to the plaintiffs. Si(ilarly, on the sa(e ate the plaintiff an

=S&> entere into an Bption Dee ate 61stanuary 6008 proviin*

an option to the plaintiff for eGtenin* the uration of its ri*hts uner

the MSMS-M)A ate 61st anuary 6008 till the year 601C. After

su!!essful !o(pletion of the >P Season-> an in ?e+ruary 6007 hile

preparation for >P-Season-6 ere in full sin*, the appellant-plaintiff

re!eive nu(erous le*al noti!es fro( >M&, a sports, Nntertainin* an

Meia !o(pany, a!tin* for an on +ehalf of /> alle*in* various

+rea!hes +y the plaintiff of the (eia ri*hts li!ense a*ree(ent entere

into +y the plaintiff an the /> on 61st anuary 6008. he plaintiff

enie that +rea!hes ere !o((itte an ne*otiations ere hel to

a(i!a+ly resolve the ispute arisin* out of these alle*ations. Foever,

hile the plaintiff an the /> ere en*a*e in the ne*otiations, the

/> +y an e-(ail ate 14thMar!h 6007 purporte to ter(inate this

a*ree(ent. hereupon pro!eein*s ere file +ein* Ar+itration

Petition o.615 of 6007. A li(ite in%un!tion as *rante an the

(atter as a%ourne +ut the /> infor(e the Avo!ates for the

plaintiff that on 15thMar!h 6007 /> entere into an a*ree(ent ate

15th Mar!h 6007, hat the efenant"responent ter(e as =S&M-

M)A a*ree(ent. lause 13.1 of this a*ree(ent has +een relie upon

+y the plaintiff in para*raph 8 of the plaint an it is ur*e that ithout

proper !onsent of the /> the =S&M-M)A oul not +e a+le to

assi*n, su+-!ontra!t or otherise part ith the +uren of the +enefit of

the a*ree(ent or any part thereof +ut !oul su+-li!ense the a*ree(ent


43/61


ithin C6 hours of si*nature, failin* hi!h the >nian su+-!ontinent

(eia ri*hts oul auto(ati!ally revert to /> +y operation of lause

13.5 of the sa(e. Alle*in* that uner the 61

st

anuary 6008 a*ree(ent+eteen =S&> AD />, the *lo+al (eia ri*hts ere ori*inally

*rante to =S&> +y the /> an this a*ree(ent provies that in !ase

of ter(ination of the a*ree(ent +eteen the appellant an /> 9the

a*ree(ent ter(e as MSMS-M)A:, /> an =S&> oul enter into

*oo faith ne*otiations for eGploitation for >nian su+-!ontinent ri*hts.

>t is alle*e that even hen the ar*u(ents ere !o(plete on 1th

Mar!h 6007 an orers ere reserve +y the learne Sin*le u*e,

!o((er!ial ne*otiations +eteen the appellant an /> a!tin*

throu*h Mr. alit Moi !ontinue, parallel to the ourt pro!eein*s in

vie of the i((inent !o((en!e(ent of >P-Season-6 in April 6007. >t

is alle*e that Dire!tors of the responent an =S&> ere also present.

he ourt e!line to *rant interi( relief in the ar+itration petition

+e!ause thir party ri*hts ha +een !reate in favour of the responent-

Mauritius !o(pany an the responent as not a party to the ar+itration

petition. >t is in su!h !ir!u(stan!es that the plaintiff re-ne*otiate ith

the responent-Mauritius !o(pany, =S&> an /> for se!urin* the

ri*hts an the e-(ails that are referre to in para*raphs 11 an 16 of the

plaint, a!!orin* to the appellant ini!ate that the person havin* sole

eG!lusive authority to ne*otiate an eGe!ute >P relate !ontra!ts on

+ehalf of /> as Mr. alit Moi. he appellant +elieve that />

ha uly li!ense the *lo+al (eia ri*hts to the efenant-Mauritius

!o(pany ith the ri*ht to *rant su+-li!ense. Althou*h the appellant-

plaintiff as esirous of se!urin* !ontra!t only ith /> rather than

+e!o(in* a su+-li!ensee of the efenant-Mauritius !o(pany, they

!ontinue ne*otiations ith the efenants to a!Huire >nian su+-

!ontinent (eia ri*hts relyin* on the representations in the e-(ails an


44/61


sole representative of the efenants. >t is in su!h !ir!u(stan!es that

the !olle!tive representation referre to in para*raph 15 ha +een

alle*ely relie upon +y the plaintiff an thus they entere into tofresh a*ree(ents on 65th Mar!h 6007 hi!h in!lue the Dee for

Provision of ?a!ilitation Servi!es ate 65th Mar!h 6007. Uner these

ees, the plaintiff a*ree to !o(pensate the efenant-Mauritius

!o(pany for its alle*e servi!es in fa!ilitatin* the eGe!ution of the

MSMS-M)A a*ree(ent ate 65thMar!h 6007 an relinHuishe the

(eia ri*hts purporte to have +een *rante in its favour +y />. he

ee !ontaine a representation +y efenant that the purporte M)A

a*ree(ent ate 63rMar!h 6007 +eteen the efenant an /> as

(utually ter(inate as on 65thMar!h 6007.

4C. >n para*raph 1C, the plaintiff referre to the eGe!ution of

the a*ree(ent ate 65thMar!h 6007 a*reein* to (utually ter(inate the

Bption Dee ate 61st anuary 6008 hi!h has +een entere into

+eteen the plaintiff an =S&> for eGtenin* the plaintiffs ri*hts uner

the MSMS-M)A ate 61stanuary 6008 till the year 601C.

48. hus, it is alle*e that the MSMS-M)A a*ree(ent ate

65thMar!h 6007 an the ee hi!h ere eGe!ute si(ultaneously are

interline an have (aterial !ross referen!es. )eferen!e is (ae to

!lause .6. of the ee hi!h stipulates that the ee shall +e

auto(ati!ally ter(inate upon ter(ination of MSMS-M)A ate 65th

Mar!h 6007 for any reason or for any reason the appellant !eases to +e

entitle to the (eia ri*hts *rante pursuant to this a*ree(ent. lause

10.4 of the MSMS-M)A ate 65thMar!h 6007 provie that upon

re!eipt of the responent@s noti!e in a!!oran!e ith the ee, the />


45/61


!an i((eiately ter(inate the a*ree(ent ate 65thMar!h 6007 su+%e!t

to !ertain !onitions.

47. he plaintiff in para*raph 17 of the plaint states that i t

a*ree to pay the /> the eGa!t a(ount as ri*hts fee hi!h ere

suppose to +e pai +y the responent uner the =S&M-M)A ate

15thMar!h 6007. he plaintiff as (ae to +elieve that it as payin*

the fa!ilitation fees uner the ee to the efenant-Mauritius !o(pany

for it havin* relinHuishe its (eia ri*hts uner the purporte M)A in

favour of the plaintiff. Foever, as alle*e in para*raph 60 of the

plaint, infor(ation re!eive fro( /> after suspension of Mr. alit

Moi, >P o((issioner an after havin* a!!ess to the letters an

!orresponen!e as ell as !ertain other a*ree(ents hi!h ere not

non to the plaintiff at the relevant ti(e, reveale that the efenant-

Mauritius !o(pany ha frauulently inu!e the plaintiff-Sonyinto

eGe!utin* the ee +y suppressin* the fa!t that the (eia ri*hts for(in*

su+%e!t (atter of MSMS-M)A a*ree(ent ate 65thMar!h 6007 ha

in fa!t reverte to /> an that as on the ate of ee, the efenant-

Mauritius !o(panyi not hol any ri*hts of hatsoever nature ith

re*ar to the >nian su+-!ontinent (eia ri*hts of the >P. A referen!e

is (ae to the sho !ause noti!e issue +y /> to Mr. alit Moi

herein parti!ularly the !ontra!ts in Huestion have +een referre to an

the alle*ations in the (eia of alle*e unlaful !onsieration havin*

+een pai +y the plaintiff for a!Huirin* the relevant (eia ri*hts

istur+e the( an that is hy they issue a press state(ent ate 63r

April 6010. A referen!e has +een (ae to the (eetin*s of the offi!ials

of /> an the plaintiff in para*raphs 64 an 65 of the plaint an then

further referen!e is (ae to the !ontentions of />. >t is alle*e that

the /> infor(e the plaintiff that urin* the perio 15thMar!h to 64th


46/61


Mar!h 6007, the (eia ri*hts ere li!ense to the efenant-Mauritius

!o(pany for the eGpress purpose of li!ensin* the( to a +roa!aster an

/> ha not authorise the efenant to fa!ilitate any a*ree(ent ith/> an"or any other party as !learly evien!e. >t is in su!h

!ir!u(stan!es that the alle*ation of frau, suppression of fa!ts an

ron*ful representations are (ae an their *ravity, a!!orin* to the

plaintiff, is evien!e +y the fa!t that till o!u(ents provie +y />

so(e of the aspe!ts ere not non to the(. >t is in su!h !ir!u(stan!es

that referen!e is (ae to the alle*ations leain* to the filin* of a Suit on

65th une 6010 in this ourt +y the appellant-plaintiff a*ainst the

responent-Mauritius !o(pany, =S&> an />. he Suit is penin*.

he prayers in the Suit are set out an it is alle*e that the noti!es ere

uly serve on 65"6th une 6010. he ourt re!ore the state(ent

that /> oul not ter(inate the appellant@s a*ree(ent urin* the

penen!y of the noti!e of (otion, +ut su+seHuently the appellant-

plaintiff as serve ith a !opy of the letter aresse +y the

responent-Mauritius !o(pany to the >nternational ha(+er of

o((er!e en!losin* thereith a reHuest for ar+itration as !onte(plate

uner the ?a!ilitation Dee. >t is, therefore, alle*e that upon +e!o(in*

aare of the >nian pro!eein*s an ith a vie to frustrate the(

instea of parti!ipatin* in the(, the responent-Mauritius !o(pany has

approa!he the > ourt of Ar+itration ith a reHuest for ar+itration

!ontainin* reliefs hi!h are ire!tly an su+stantially in issue +efore

this ourt in the >nian pro!eein*s. he alle*ations in para*raphs 44,

45, 4 an 4C of the plaint are a+out the *ross a+use of %ui!ial pro!ess,

pro!eein*s in Sin*apore +ein* veGatious, oppressive an foru( non

conveniense. >t is alle*e !learly that if /> is !onsierin* institution

of !ivil an !ri(inal pro!eein*s a*ainst =S&> for the frau purporte

+y =S&> an the responent-Mauritius !o(pany an that oul +e


47/61


initiate in >nia. >t is alle*e that the ?a!ilitation Dee as si*ne +y

the responent-efenant in Mauritius. he frau !o((itte +y the

responent-efenant is in Mu(+ai. he responent-Mauritius!o(pany (ae false representations to the offi!ials of the plaintiffs

holin* !o(pany ithin the %urisi!tion of this ourt an, therefore,

apart fro( this ourt, there is no other ourt hi!h !oul +e !onstrue

as ourt of natural %urisi!tion. ?urther, there +ein* serious alle*ations

of frau an hi!h reHuire etaile eGa(ination of itnesses, the sa(e

are not suita+le for ar+itration +ut have to +e e!ie +y ourt. hat is

e(phasi2e in para*raphs 50 an 51 of the plaint. >t is in this li*ht that

the final reliefs are !lai(e.

50. herefore, it oul +e ne!essary to reprou!e the !lause

hi!h is non as ;&overnin* a& A=

his Dee shall +e *overne +y an !onstrue ina!!oran!e ith the las of Nn*lan an =ales,ithout re*ar to !hoi!e of la prin!iples. All a!tionsor pro!eein*s arisin* in !onne!tion ith, tou!hin*

upon or relatin* to this Dee, the +rea!h thereof an"orthe s!ope of the provisions of this Se!tion shall +esu+(itte to the >nternational ha(+er of o((er!e9the ;ha(+erf the Parties areuna+le to a*ree on the ar+itrator, the ha(+er shall


48/61


!hoose one for the(. he ar+itration shall +e a!onfiential pro!eein*, !lose to the *eneral pu+li!.he ar+itrator shall assess the !ost of the ar+itration

a*ainst the losin* party. >n aition, the prevailin*party in any ar+itration or le*al pro!eein* relatin* tothis Dee shall +e entitle to all reasona+le eGpenses9in!luin*, ithout li(itation, reasona+le attorney@sfees:. otithstanin* the fore*oin*, the ar+itrator(ay reHuire that su!h fees +e +orne in su!h other(anner as the ar+itrator eter(ines is reHuire in orerfor this ar+itration provision to +e enfor!ea+le unerappli!a+le la. he ar+itrator shall issue a rittenopinion statin* the essential finin*s an !on!lusionsupon hi!h the ar+itrator@s aar is +ase. hear+itrator shall have the poer to enter te(poraryrestrainin* orers an preli(inary an per(anentin%un!tions. o party shall +e entitle or per(itte to!o((en!e or (aintain any a!tion in a !ourt of laith respe!t to any (atter in ispute until su!h (attershall have +een su+(itte to ar+itration as hereinprovie an then only for the enfor!e(ent of thear+itrator@s aarI provie, hoever, that prior to the

appoint(ent of the ar+itrator or for re(eies +eyonthe %urisi!tion of an ar+itrator, at any ti(e, any party(ay see eHuita+le relief in a !ourt of !o(petent

%urisi!tion in Sin*apore, or su!h other !ourt that (ayhave %urisi!tion over the Parties, ithout there+yaivin* its ri*ht to ar+itration of the ispute or!ontroversy uner this se!tion. FN PA)>NSFN)N/ =A>$N FN>) )>&F B U) )>A=>F )NSPN B A A>MS AD >SSUNS

A)>S>& UDN), > BN>B =>F,BUF>& UPB B) )NA>& B F>SDNND, FN /)NAF FN)NB? AD"B) FNSBPN B? FN P)B$>S>BS B? F>S SN>B,=FNFN) SBUD>& > B)A B) B),AD >UD>& A A>M ?B)?)AUDUN >DUNMN FN)NB?. ire!tly. >t alle*es that it ha ne*otiate

only ith /> an the responent ha no role. hrou*hout in the

affiavit in reply file to oppose the noti!e of (otion an hile tra!in*

the events leain* to the eGe!ution of the !ontra!ts, at (ore than one

pla!e, the responent-Mauritius !o(pany (aes a referen!e to />.

>n para*raph 63 of their reply that is file +efore the learne Sin*le

u*e on 16thuly 6010, the responent asserts that =S&>, /> an

the responent entere into a ee of (utually a*ree ter(ination of the

earlier ri*hts. he parties a*ree to a (utual ter(ination in

!onsieration of ne !ontra!ts ne*otiate an to +e eGe!ute. hose

ere >nian su+-!ontinent ri*hts to the responent-Mauritius !o(pany

an for other orl ri*hts to =S&>. A!!orin*ly, the responent (aes

referen!e to the !ontra!t ith the /> relatin* to the television ri*hts

for >nian su+-!ontinent 6007-601C ate 15thMar!h 6007 uner hi!h

it !lai(e authority fro( /> to su+-li!ense. et, in para*raph 35, the

responent states that it never represente or hel out that it ha a

!ontra!t ate 63rMar!h 6007 or any !ontra!t ith /> for the >nian

su+-!ontinent ri*hts other than the 15th Mar!h 6007 a*ree(ent. here

are !ertain state(ents in para*raph 3C an in su+-!lause 9!: the


54/61


responent asserts that its only representation as !ontaine in the

fa!ilitation ee an that as a+out its eGistin* ri*hts +ein* ter(inate

or eGtin*uishe at the ti(e of eGe!utin* the fa!ilitation ee. ?urther,hen the responent says that there is no Huestion of representation

+e!ause of hat is state in para*raph 3C9+:9i: to 9iv: it asserts in

para*raph 3C93: that it fa!ilitate the pro!ess of the appellant !ontra!tin*

ire!tly ith />. >t as also ur*e +efore the learne Sin*le u*e

that there as no relinHuish(ent in the appellant-plaintiff@s favour. he

responent@s ri*hts ha to en +efore the responent !oul *ive any

ri*hts in faovur of the appellant. >n para*raph 38 the eponent of the

affiavit Mr. Farish 'rishna(a!har 9!onstitute attorney of the

efenant: states that he has !he!e ith all persons involve

ne*otiations on +ehalf of the efenant an no one has ever (ae any

representation that the efenant ha a !ontra!t ate 63rMar!h 6007.

=ithout +ein* te!hni!al, it is !lear that it is the onstitute Attorney

ho is eposin* a+out so(e fa!ts hi!h are in the personal nole*e

of those involve in the ne*otiations. herefore, his assertion (ust +e

unerstoo a!!orin*ly. All that has +een state in this affiavit is that

on!e the appellant-plaintiff enters into a fa!ilitation ee ith the

stipulation of ar+itration noin* fully ell the effe!t an i(pli!ations

thereof, then, the appellant-plaintiff !annot ur*e that the foru( !hosen is

in!onvenient to parties +e!ause it alle*es (is-representation an frau.

5. =e are of the vie that the state(ents (ae in the affiavit

over-loo the alle*ations in the plaint an essentially of frau. he

alle*ations are inee serious. >t is not as if e are !o((entin* upon

the !orre!tness or otherise of the rival version. Suffi!e it to state that

hen su!h alle*ations are (ae in the plaint an the re!or ini!ates


55/61


that /> not +ein* a party to the ar+itration, the ar+itral venue +ein* at

Sin*apore, the *overnin* las +ein* as e!ie +y parties, all this

aversely affe!ts the interest of /> an the *eneral pu+li!. =hen inthe pro!eein*s +eteen parties the role of /> is +oun to +e

hi*hli*hte, then, a+sen!e of /> is a vital fa!tor. As o+serve +y

Sa+yasa!hi Muher%i, . for the al!utta Fi*h ourt in General

Enterprises and others vs 6ardine 'anderson Ltd., AIR 1!/ CAL. 40/,

9para 15: ;..... as the sayin* *oes that to sta*e Fa(let ithout the Prin!e

of Den(ar oul +e i(proper.....nian ourts oul have serious

!onseHuen!es. he funs involve are in relation to the ri*hts of />

+e!ause it is the /> hi!h or*ani2es the tourna(ent. >f the ansers

to the issues raise in the affiavits are to +e *iven that shoul only +e at

an open trial here the pu+li! has an a!!ess. Ulti(ately, ho television

ri*hts are ealt ith +y /> an ho are the +enefi!iaries of the eals

of /> an hether the offi!ers of /> ha any involve(ent therein

are (atters hi!h (ust +e non to the !ri!etin* pu+li!. hey ill +e

non only if there is no !onfientiality in the trial. Su!h i(portant

(atters involvin* serious alle*ations of frau an ron*ful inu!e(ent

!annot +e sai to +e !onfiential. More so, hen the position of />

is appre!iate. he trial ourt shoul have, therefore, averte to these

!ontentions raise +y parties an shoul not have reste its !on!lusions

only +y perusin* the ar+itration !lause. =e are of the opinion that the

learne u*e has pro!eee on an erroneous +asis, to hol that the

%urisi!tion of the ar+itrator is sou*ht to +e eG!lue only upon alle*in*

frau. he trial ourt !onsiere the (atter only as a ispute uner the


56/61


fa!ilitation ee an that the !lai( of the appellant is that it is not +oun

an lia+le to (ae pay(ent uner the !ontra!t or the further pay(ents

+e!ause the a*ree(ent as vitiate +y frau.

58. =ith *reatest respe!t to the learne Sin*le u*e, the

!on!lusion that these are efen!es of the appellant-plaintiff an they !an

+e *one into +y the ar+itral tri+unal !onsierin* the orin* of the

ar+itration a*ree(ent, is in!orre!t. he learne u*e as in error in

!on!luin* that the !ause of a!tion of the plaintiff-appellant in the suit is

their efen!e in the ar+itration. All these !on!lusions are +ase upon a

narro vie of the (atter, the transa!tions an the ealin*s. he learne

u*e over-looe a si*nifi!ant aspe!t arisin* out of the role of />.

>t is /> hi!h is istri+utin* an hanin* over the ri*hts an it is

throu*h /> that the appellant-plaintiff an the responent-efenant

erive the(. herefore, to tae a vie that the !ase of frau !an +e

*one into +y the ar+itrator, ith respe!t, oul not +e vali an proper.

he sa(e is also vitiate +e!ause the learne u*e pro!eee on the

+asis that +y virtue of Se!tion 5 of Ar+itration an on!iliation A!t,

177, the ourt !annot intervene an interfere ith the ar+itration

a*ree(ent. Nven that !on!lusion runs !ounter to the e!isions hi!h are

relie on +y the responent-efenant. hese e!isions !learly ini!ate

that hen vital issues of frau an pu+li! poli!y are raise an hen

interests of thir parties are involve an affe!te, then, the !hoi!e is not

left to parties. >t is for the ourt to eter(ine as to hether it ill allo

the (atters to +e *one into +y a o(esti! tri+unal in !onfientiality or

hether they are fit to +e e!ie +y a ourt of la in an open trial.

Bn!e e rea!h the !on!lusion that hen the issues arisin* out of frau

as raise in the present pro!eein*s have a +earin* on the position of

/> in the *a(e of !ri!et, the involve(ent of the *eneral pu+li! in


57/61


the *a(e an the television ri*hts hi!h are !onferre for viein* the

*a(es +y the(, so also presen!e of /> +ein* ne!essary, then, the

(atter is fit for an open pu+li! trial +y a ourt of la. hat !annot +eleft to +e e!ie +y a tri+unal !hosen +y parties. he reper!ussions of

alloin* su!h (atters to +e e!ie +y a o(esti! tri+unal !hosen +y

parties oul +e serious an in the lon*er run affe!t the %ui!ial pro!ess

itself. >f su!h a !ourse is per(itte, that (i*ht run !ounter to the o+%e!t

an purpose of insertin* Se!tions 63 an 68 in the >nian ontra!t A!t,

18C6. >n other ors, the i(pa!t of all this on >nian las oul +e

tre(enous. =e oul +e failin* in our uty if e o not noti!e the

sa(e an tae appropriate !orre!tive steps.

57. Aitionally, in this !ase, one suit institute +y the

appellant, to hi!h /> is party, is penin* in this ourt sin!e 65th

une 6010. he responent oul ter( it a !ollusive a!tion +ut on!e

so(e pro!eein* relatin* to the sa(e !ontra!t is penin* in a ourt of

la, then, all the (ore the (atter (ust +e ealt ith +y that ourt of

la. Ulti(ately, all !ontra!ts refer to />. =hether prior or

su+seHuent, all of the( arise out of the sa(e ri*ht, na(ely, television

an (eia ri*hts of >P. hey are inter-!onne!te an inter-relate,

pri(a fa!ie. herefore, to see the !lause relatin* to &overnin* a in

isolation oul +e i(proper an erroneous. >n any event, the !lause is

entitle as ;&overnin* at eals ith appli!a+ility of las in

relation to the su+%e!t !ontra!t. he foru( for reressal of isputes is

+ut one fa!et of the sa(e. herefore an hen there is inter-!onne!tion

an !lose proGi(ity in the o+li*ations of parties uner the su+%e!t ee

ith their earlier ealin*s, then, to allo a o(esti! tri+unal to eal ith

isputes only uner the fa!ilitation ee oul (ean se*re*atin* an

separatin* the !lai(s. >t oul a(ount to alloin* splittin* up of


58/61


(atters an isputes penin* in >nia an a+roa. hus, there is a

possi+ility of !onfli!tin* veri!ts an that oul have an i(pa!t on

appli!a+ility of >nian las, hi!h (ay ulti(ately +e hel to +eappli!a+le, at least in pro!eein*s penin* in >nia. >t is in this sense

that e feel that the i(pli!ations of all this on >nian %ui!ial pro!ess is

an aspe!t hi!h !annot +e ept asie. >n AIR 1!!1 SC 2234 9#yram

$estonji Gari5ala vs 2nion #ank o &ndia and others:, the Supre(e

ourt hel that >nian le*al syste( is the prou!t of history. >t is roote

in our soilI nurture an nourishe +y our !ultureI lan*ua*es an

traitionsI fostere an sharpene +y our *enius an Huest for so!ial

%usti!eI it is not a (ere !opy of Nn*lish o((on laI thou*h inspire

an *uie +y it. herefore, ith respe!t, e !annot sustain the

restri!te vie of the learne Sin*le u*e.

0. he Huestion is hether in the fa!ts of the present !ase, it

as in!u(+ent upon the ourt hearin* Suit 9o*in*: o. 1701 of 6010

to refer all the parties to the sai suit 9in!luin* />: to ar+itration. As

alreay is!usse ela+orately earlier, sin!e the ispute +eteen the

appellant an the responent herein is eG!lusively line ith the

ispute +eteen /> on the one han an Mr. alit Moi anresponent-Mauritius !o(pany on the other han an the lar*er ispute

is penin* e!ision in Suit 9o*in*: o.1701 of 6010, the ispute

+eteen the appellant-Sony an the responent-Mauritius !o(pany

!annot +e referre to ar+itration.

1. he e!ision of the ApeG ourt in C*C +inancial Services

,auritius- Ltd. V. #$L Communications Ltd. and another( (2003) 12


59/61


SCC 140as renere in vie of the !on!ession (ae on +ehalf of the

responents therein that the orers passe +y the Fi*h ourt interferin*

ith the ar+itration ere in violation of (anate !ontaine in se!tion 5has alreay +een is!usse hereina+ove. he sai !ase i not eal ith

the fa!t situation here the ri*hts of the thir party"authority ere

involve.

6. >n vie of the a+ove is!ussion, e are in!line to *rant an

in%un!tion to restrain the responent-Mauritius !o(pany fro(

pro!eein* ith the ar+itral pro!eein*s initiate +y the responent

+efore the >nternational ha(+er of o((er!e on 68th une, 6010 after

the plaintiff file Suit 9o*in*: o.1701 of 6010 a*ainst =orl Sport

&roup 9>nia:, the responent- Mauritius !o(pany an />. Nven so,

havin* re*ar to the fa!t that in%un!tion is an eHuita+le re(ey an thatthe le*islative s!he(e of (ini(al %ui!ial intervention is in orer to

ensure that the party not a*reea+le to *o for ar+itration oes not su!!ee

in avoiin* or elayin* is!har*e of its lia+ility +y tain* re!ourse to

%ui!ial pro!eein*s for restrainin* ar+itral pro!eein*s, e !onsier it

appropriate to i(pose a !onition that the appellant-plaintiff MSM

Satellite 9Sin*apore: Private i(ite shall, ithout pre%ui!e to theri*hts an !ontentions of the parties, eposit a su( of )s.300 !rores

+efore the )e*istrar 9B.S.:" Prothonotary Senior Master of this !ourt

in Suit 9o*in*: o.1701 of 6010 ithin siG ees fro( toay. he

eposit shall a+ie +y the out!o(e of the sai suit an the a(ount shall

not +e per(itte to +e ithran +y any one ithout prior per(ission of

the !ourt tain* up Suit 9o*in*: o.1701 of 6010.


60/61


3. >n the result, the appeal is alloe. he orer ate 7th

Au*ust 6010 of the learne Sin*le u*e is set asie. oti!e of Motiono. 1807 of 6010 in Suit o.1868 of 6010 is alloe. Durin* penen!y

of Suit o.1868 of 6010 an Suit o.187 of 6010 9Suit 9o*in*: o.

1701 of 6010:, responent-efenant =orl Sport &roup 9Mauritius:

i(ite is restraine fro( !ontinuin* ith the ar+itral pro!eein*s on

the +asis of the fa!ilitation ee ate 65thMar!h, 6007 +eteen the

appellant-plaintiff MSM Satellite 9Sin*apore: Private i(ite an

responent-efenant =orl Sport &roup 9Mauritius: i(ite, su+%e!t to

the !onition that the appellant-plaintiff eposits a su( of )s.300 !rores

+efore the )e*istrar 9B.S.:" Prothonotary Senior Master of this !ourt

in Suit o.187 of 6010 9Suit 9o*in*: o.1701 of 6010: ithin siG

ees fro( toay. o ena+le the plaintiff to !o(ply ith the sai

!onition, for a perio of siG ees fro( toay, the responent-

efenant =orl Sports &roup 9Mauritius: i(ite is restraine fro(

!ontinuin* ith the a+ove ar+itral pro!eein*s.

4. Upon eposit, the a(ount shall +e investe ith a

ationalise /an for a perio of one year, uner the !u(ulative interest

s!he(e, ith instru!tions to the /an to !ontinue to rene the eposit

until further orers of this ourt in Suit o.187 of 6010 9Suit

9o*in*: o.1701 of 6010:.

3. >f the !onition of epositin* the a(ount is not !o(plie

ith ithin the a+ove ti(e li(it, the in%un!tion shall stan va!ate upon

eGpiry of the sai ti(e li(it.


61/61


4. Sin!e the appeal is ispose of, noti!e of (otion file in the

appeal oes not survive an stans ispose of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

uay"%u*(ents6010"app-l-534-10..final

Msm v Wsg Bom Hc 2010 [Before Sc Overruling]

Documents

Transcript of Msm v Wsg Bom Hc 2010 [Before Sc Overruling]