- (1.) The Court : This was an application made under sections 9 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which I shall refer in this judgment as the Act. The petitioner claimed and the Court granted leave to move this applications under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The prayer of the petitioner was for setting aside the award dated May 12, 2000 made by the joint arbitrators. There was an interim order made by Court and the award had been stayed till the disposal of the application. The parties had filed their affidavits in terms of directions of the Court. The Court : This was an application made under sections 9 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which I shall refer in this judgment as the Act. The petitioner claimed and the Court granted leave to move this applications under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The prayer of the petitioner was for setting aside the award dated May 12, 2000 made by the joint arbitrators. There was an interim order made by Court and the award had been stayed till the disposal of the application. The parties had filed their affidavits in terms of directions of the Court.
(2.) The facts of the matter in short were that in terms of an agreement dated September 26, 1998 the petitioner had been assigned by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who shall be referred as the respondents hereafter, the right of distribution, exploitation and exhibitation in 35 mm. shapes and sizes of the film "Pita Sarga Pita Dharma". The petitioner alleged that he had paid a sum of Rs. 51,000.00 by a cheque dated September 26, 1996, which had been encashed by the respondents. There was a further agreement dated November 24, 1998, between the parties, whereunder the respondents had assigned in favour of the petitioner the video rights of the film in North Bengal territory including Sikkim and Bhutan, and the petitioner in consideration had paid to the respondents a sum of Rs. 8.5 lakh. According to the petitioner large sums of money had been paid by the petitioner to and received by the respondents, as and by way of advance for making and completion of the film. Further advances were allegedly demanded by the respondents, and the petitioner refused. In those circumstances disputes and differences arose between the parties. At their instances, in terms of an arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated September 26, 1998, an arbitrator was appointed to enter into reference and adjudicate the disputes.
(3.) The respondents alleged that the arbitrator had been favouring the petitioner and by consent of the parties the arbitrator was removed. Thereafter, the parties agreed and another arbitrator was appointed. The second arbitrator entered into reference and directed the first hearing to be held on October 8, 1999. The respondents once again complained to the petitioner alleging bias against the second arbitrator. The parties agreed to remove the arbitrator and appoint EIMPA as their new arbitrator. Thereafter the petitioner alleged that the respondents were required to "complete the necessary formalities". Inspite of request the petitioner did not refer the disputes to the EIMPA and it would appear the respondents did. The EIMPA in accordance with its rules as contained in the "EIMPA Tribunal of Arbitration Rules" duly appointed three arbitrators to jointly adjudicate the disputes which had been referred to them for arbitration. Inspite of notice and direction by the arbitrators to file the counter statement, the petitioner did not comply. The petitioner did not attend any of the meetings held in the referrence. The petitioner had repeated its allegation before the arbitrators. The joint arbitrators heard the respondents and went "through the papers available in the file" and made their award.;