- (1.) This Arbitration Petition is filed by the petitioner, Shin satellite Public Co. Ltd. against the respondent, M/s. Jain Studios Ltd. under subsection (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is prayed in the application that Hon'ble Mr. Justice m. L. Pendse (Retired) be appointed as Sole Arbitrator, or in the alternative, any other retired Judge of a High Court may be appointed as an Arbitrator. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India has nominated me to exercise power under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act and that is how the matter has been placed before me for passing an appropriate order.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that it is a Company registered under the laws of thailand, having its principal office in Thailand. The petitioner carries on the satellite business and has got three satellites in the orbit, viz. , Thaicom-1, Thaicom-2 and Thaicom-3. The petitioner, through above satellites, provides broadcasting and internet services to various Companies/ firms in the world. The respondent is a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at new. Delhi.
(3.) According to the petitioner, an agreement was entered into between the parties on August 10, 1999 for availing broadcasting services of the petitioner by the respondent. The agreement, inter alia, provided for supply of satellite services, payment of fees, etc. Clause 23 provided for arbitration in case of dispute arising from the interpretation or from any matter relating to the performance of the agreement or rights or obligations of the parties. Since the dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner, through advocate addressed a letter/notice to the respondent on September 9, 2004 demanding for arbitration under Clause 23. The petitioner, in the said letter, stated that it had appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. L. Pendse (Retired) as its arbitrator and called upon the respondent to appoint an arbitrator. The petitioner, however, received a letter dated 7th October, 2004 from the respondent's advocate contending that the arbitration clause was not legal and valid and Clause 23 of the Arbitration Agreement could not be termed as 'arbitration clause'. According to the petitioner, thus, the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator which compelled the petitioner-company to file present application under section 11 (6) of the Act. A prayer was, therefore, made to make an appointment of an arbitrator.;