- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) An agreement dated 25.3.2009 was executed between the appellant - Board of Control for Cricket in India ('BCCI' for short) and the respondent in regard to Media Rights for rest of the World (that is World wide Rights except India) for telecasting the IPL (the Indian Premier League) Cricket Matches for the period 15.3.2009 to 31.12.2012 and 1.1.2013 to 31.1.2017. By letter dated 28.6.2010, the BCCI rescinded the said agreement dated 25.3.2009 attributing fraud and misrepresentation to the respondent.
(3.) Aggrieved by the termination, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('AC Act' for short) before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to restrain BCCI from creating any third party rights in regard to any of the rights conferred upon the respondent under the agreement dated 25.3.2009. The said application was dismissed by learned a single Judge on 20.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court allowed the said appeal by the impugned order dated 23.2.2011 with the following directions: "26. Considering the aforesaid aspect in our view, till the Arbitrator is appointed, the respondent is restrained from giving the contract in question to anyone. During the pendency of this appeal, a statement was made by the respondent that they will not create any third party interest. The said protection, in our view, is required to be continued for a limited period. However, the interim protection as aforesaid shall continue, provided the petitioner takes appropriate steps within a period of one month for the purpose of appointing the Arbitrator. If such proceedings are initiated within one month, such interim protection shall continue to operate till one week afte the decision is taken by the concerned court for appointment of Arbitrator. In case the application under Section 11 of the Act is rejected, this interim protection shall automatically cease to operate. However, in case, Arbitrator is appointed, the parties may apply to the Arbitrator, within two weeks of such appointment for interim relief and till then the interim relief will continue to operate. If any such application is preferred, the Arbitrator is free to decide the said application, after hearing both sides on its own merits. It is for the Arbitrator to decide whether interim protection which is continued is required to be continued or the prayer for interim protection is required to be rejected or whether any additional interim protection is required to be granted. All these aspects are left to the Arbitrator who shall decide the same in accordance with law, after hearing both the sides and the observations made in this order shall have no effect as the said application is required to be decided de novo on its own merits. The above observations are made only in connection with Section 9 Application and the same will have no bearing in case any application under Section 11 of the Act is preferred by the petitioner. The said order is challenged by BCCI in this appeal by special leave. On 3.3.2011, while issuing notice, this court granted interim stay of the judgment of the division bench of the High Court, subject to the condition that BCCI will continue to be bound by its undertaking (given to the High Court) that it will honour all contracts (sub-licence agreements) entered into by the respondent.;