SHAIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO LTD Vs. JAIN STUDIOS LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-1-62
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 31,2006

SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
JAIN STUDIOS LTD. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CORINGA OIL CO. V. KOEGLER [REFERRED TO]
ATTWOOD V. LAMONT [REFERRED TO]
SIMILARLY,KALL-KWIK PRINTING (U.K.) LIMITED V. FRANK CLEARENCE RUSH [REFERRED TO]
BABASAHEB RAHIMSAHEB V. RAJARAM RAGHUNATH [REFERRED TO]
S B P AND CO VS. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD [REFERRED TO]
UNION CONSTRUCTION CO PRIVATE LTD VS. CHIEF ENGINEER EASTERN COMMAND LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

STARCON INDIA LTD & ANR. VS. PRASAR BHARTI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-143] [REFERRED TO]
AGRA COLD RETREADS PVT LTD VS. INDAG RUBBER LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-132] [REFERRED TO]
BHANU CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD VS. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORP LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-224] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-316] [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHWAR PATIDAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
JMC ATEPL JOINT VENTURE VS. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-87] [REFERRED TO]
TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-383] [REFERRED TO]
C.V. RAO VS. STRATEGIC PORT INVESTMENTSKPC LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD VS. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2008-11-190] [REFERRED TO]
AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-395] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD VS. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH TRADING COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2015-7-131] [REFERRED TO]
ELEKTRON LIGHTING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VS. SHAH INVESTMENTS FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENTS [LAWS(SC)-2015-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
ENERCON (INDIA) LTD. VS. ENERCON GMBH [LAWS(SC)-2014-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
FRIENDS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND ORS VS. ASIT MULTI PURPOSE ASSOCIATION & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2008-8-677] [REFERRED]
KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED VS. SANJEEV [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
KARISMAA MEP SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. KGS MILESTONE CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI AGARWAL VS. CHAIRPERSON DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-130] [REFERRED TO]
G VENKATA REDDY AND CO ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS VS. VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR APMDC LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2008-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR GAYEN VS. JANJALI GAYEN [LAWS(CAL)-2015-10-85] [REFERRED]
SAHIB SINGH VS. ARVINDER KAUR [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-249] [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH JHUNJHUNWALA SON OF LATE SATYANARAYAN JHUNJHUNWALA VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-11-43] [REFERRED TO]
ACE PIPELINE CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH VILLANGADAN VS. P N WRITER AND CO P LTD [LAWS(KER)-2010-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
AJMER VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED THROUGH ITS CMD HATHIBHATA POWER HOUSE ROAD VS. HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED (HZL) YASHAD BHAWAN, UDAIPUR (RAJ ) [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
ISMAIL HAJEE ESSA TRUST VS. MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH SURI VS. GOLD TOUCH REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2008-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PUNJAB COTTON CO (IMP-EXP) LTD; INDUSIND BANK LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-487] [REFERRED]
R. SUNDARAM VS. RAJA THEATERS [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-608] [REFERRED TO]
K I P L VISTACORE INFRA PROJECTS J V , VS. ICHALKARANJEE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OFFICE AT COUNCIL OFFICE [LAWS(BOM)-2020-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
WATERSWEET LIMITED VS. FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS [LAWS(DLH)-2006-5-162] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BHAGWATI COTTONS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
R S JIWANI VS. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2009-12-109] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MAHAKALI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2022-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. VS. DATAR SWITCHGEAR LTD [LAWS(SC)-2018-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
NAMSINREI PANMEI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
CIPLA LTD VS. ANANT GANPAT PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM BROOK LIMITED VS. BORGONG CATHOLIC HOSPITAL [LAWS(GAU)-2007-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
EVERONN SYSTEMS INDIA LIMITED VS. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2007-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
HBHL-VKS (J.V.) VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-292] [REFERRED TO]
FORBES GOKAK LTD. VS. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-444] [REFERRED TO]
CDR S P PURI RETD SOLE PROP SPIRAL SERVICES VS. AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-187] [RELIED ON]
SHANKAR TRADERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2006-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-135] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH JAIN VS. WELLWON BUILDERS INDIA PVT LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2011-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ORBIT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. M/S. SASTRA PROPERTIES (INDIA) LTD. [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD VS. DATAR SWITCHGEAR LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-107] [REFERRED TO]
IREO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VIBHOR HOME DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-117] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. VEDANTA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-196] [REFERRED TO]
JARNAIL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2011-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. VS. BALBIR SHARMA [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-95] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN GOLF UNION VS. WEST BENGAL GOLF SOCIETY [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-214] [REFERRED TO]
BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2006-9-114] [REFERRED TO]
KARAM CHAND THAPAR AND BROS (COAL SALES) LTD VS. TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INDIA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-116] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
NEWTON ENGINEERING AND CHEMICALS LTD VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-106] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. INDOSOLAR LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-126] [REFERRED TO]
REACON ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2018-9-234] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. MOHAN LAL HARBANSLAL BHAYANA VS. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-222] [REFERRED TO]
SASAN POWER LIMITED VS. NORTH AMERICAN COAL CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-9-147] [REFERRED TO]
TEXCO MARKETING PVT. LTD VS. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. U L TRADING CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-422] [REFERRED]
N P JACOB VS. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-2008-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
BARODA RAYON CORPORATION LTD. VS. SHANTILAL PRABHUBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
MONEY NAIR VS. M/S POWER & CONTROL TRANSFORMER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2018-12-165] [REFERRED TO]
TRADE AND INVESTMENT FACILITATION CORPORATION LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-11-119] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. VALUE ADVISORY SERVICES VS. M/S. ZTE CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAWATI COTTONS LTD VS. SUMMARY SUIT NO 2959 OF 1999 [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
DHOLI SPINTEX PVT. LTD. VS. LOUIS DREYFUS COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
JAIN STUDIOS LTD VS. SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KR. SINGH VS. MADHURI KUMARI @ MADHUBALA [LAWS(PAT)-2014-8-15] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (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.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.