- (1.) THIS chamber summons has been filed by the respondent praying that the execution application filed by the claimant be dismissed and the attachment levied on his flat No. 1101, Imperial Heights 58, Nargis Dutt Road, Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400050 (suit property) be raised and/or set aside. The primary ground of challenge is that the decision given by the committee of ''Indian Motion Picture Producers ' Association '' (IMPPA) on 28th January 2010 is not an arbitral award as contemplated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) and consequently no execution proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) could be initiated for enforcement thereof.
(2.) THE facts relevant to the dispute are as follows: - (a) The claimant is a producer of a feature film ''JAAN KI BAAZI '' starring the respondent as well as other actors. The shooting for the film started in October, 2001 and was 50% complete. According to the claimant the respondent was paid Rs.50,00,000/ - at the time when he attended the Muharat of the film and had also shot for the film on a few occasions but thereafter did not allot any further dates for the next 7 years. (b) For this reason, after a period of about 7 years, the claimant filed a complaint on 23rd December 2008 before IMPPA bringing these facts to their notice and requested IMPPA to direct the respondent to give 30 days of shooting dates to the claimant at the agreed price of Rs.1.5 crores failing which strict instructions be issued to all producers not to co -operate with him in any manner whatsoever. (c) By his letter dated 15th January 2009, the respondent through his advocate, informed IMPPA that the complaint filed by the claimant was only for the purposes of extorting monies from him and that in spite of him having attended 2 days of shooting in October 2001, there was no payment made to the respondent in connection with the said film. The respondent categorically denied that he was paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/ - and call upon the claimant to produce any evidence in respect thereof. (d) Thereafter, a host of correspondence was exchanged between the respondent, the claimant and IMPPA which is not really relevant for deciding the issue raised in this chamber summons. It would only be relevant to refer to a letter dated 29th of December 2009 addressed by the respondent 's advocate to IMPPA once again reiterating what was stated in his earlier letter dated 15th January 2009 and contending that there was no legal requirement to appear before IMPPA of which he was not a member. (e) Shortly thereafter, a decision was given by IMPPA dated 28th January, 2010 wherein it directed the respondent to allot 30 days of shooting to the claimant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said decision failing which, the respondent was directed to compensate the claimant by returning Rs.50,00,000/ - allegedly taken as remuneration, and losses caused to the claimant amounting to Rs.1,53,75,000/ - along with interest at the prevailing rate. It is important to note that this decision was styled as an award and was on Rs.100 stamp paper that was purchased in the name of the proprietary concern of the claimant. The alleged award itself records that the claimant was a member of the dispute resolution committee and that he recused himself from the same being the interested party in the matter, and thereafter appeared in person for his proprietary concern. Another very peculiar fact, is that despite the so called award being passed on 28th January 2010, a notice dated 1st February 2010 was issued to the respondent calling upon him to attend a meeting to be held on 5th February 2010 failing which an ex parte decision would be passed by IMPPA. When this court inquired as to how or why this notice was issued after the alleged award was already passed, there was no answer from the advocate for the claimant. (f) Be that as it may, treating the said decision dated 28th January, 2010 as an arbitral award under the Act the claimant filed the above execution application for enforcement thereof. Mr. Thorat, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that in the present case, (i) there was no arbitration agreement; (ii) IMPPA was not an arbitral Tribunal; (iii) what was filed before IMPPA by the claimant was a complaint and not a reference as contemplated under the Act; and (iv) consequently, the decision given by IMPPA on the said complaint could never be an arbitral award under the Act that could be enforced by this court under the provisions of the CPC. Mr. Thorat submitted that in order for this court to construe the decision of IMPPA as an arbitral award, there has to be (i) an arbitration agreement; (ii) a meeting of the minds between the parties on a reference to arbitration; and (iii) the existence of an arbitral Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act which decides the disputes on the basis that it is adjudicating upon differences between the parties, and upon which it renders a reasoned award. Mr. Thorat contended that none of the above ingredients were fulfilled in the present case, and submitted that the execution application was non -est, an abuse of the process of the Court and therefore had to be dismissed.
(3.) MR . Thorat, further submitted that the respondent was not even a member of Indian Motion Picture Producers' Association (IMPPA) and hence not bound either by their Memorandum and Articles of Association or by their bye -laws, rules and regulations, if any. According to Mr. Thorat, as per the Memorandum and Articles of the Association of IMPPA, the respondent was not even eligible to become their member. He stated that M/s. Sanjay Dutt Productions Pvt Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 was a member of IMPPA and that he was a director of the said company. He contended that in the present case the complaint was admittedly filed against the respondent in his personal capacity and not as a director / nominee of his Company, namely M/s. Sanjay Dutt Productions Pvt. Ltd. In view thereof, he submitted that in any event, any decision given by IMPPA directing him to make any payment or forcing him to allot any days of shooting to the claimant was non -est and not binding upon the respondent. Consequently no such decision could be enforced taking recourse to execution proceedings in this court.;