Court Orders Parties to Maintain Status Quo on Franchise Fees and Ticket Collections Pending Arbitration
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. and Ms Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited, concerning a Media Rights Agreement and an Airtime Sale Agreement. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar presided over the case, emphasizing the need for prompt arbitration proceedings to prevent undue delay.
The dispute centers around alleged violations of contractual agreements related to the Legends League Cricket Masters T20 tournament. Jiostar India sought interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, requesting various measures to safeguard its contractual rights pending arbitration. The petitioner demanded that the respondents deposit significant sums and refrain from creating third-party rights over the league's media and commercial assets.
Acknowledging the mutual consent of both parties to resolve their differences through arbitration, the court dispensed with the formal initiation of Section 21 Notice and separate proceedings under Section 11 for appointing the arbitrator. The court appointed Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, a Senior Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator, instructing him to commence proceedings without delay.
Justice Shankar directed that the amounts collected by the respondents towards franchise fees and ticket collections shall remain intact and subject to further orders by the arbitrator. This directive ensures that no third-party interests are created pending the resolution of the dispute.
The court further instructed the Sole Arbitrator to provide the requisite disclosures under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act within a week of entering the reference. The costs of arbitration will be equally borne by both parties.
The decision reaffirms the court's stance on expediting arbitration processes when parties have mutually agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration. Justice Shankar clarified that the court’s order should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all rights and contentions open for adjudication by the arbitrator.
The court ordered the registry to dispatch a copy of the judgment to the appointed arbitrator. With this judgment, the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act stands disposed of, transitioning the matter to an application under Section 17, awaiting further directions from the learned arbitrator.
Bottom line:-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Disputes under Media Rights Agreement and Airtime Sale Agreement referred to arbitration by mutual consent of parties. Court appointed Sole Arbitrator and directed parties to adhere to arbitration proceedings without delay.
Statutory provision(s):
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 9, 17, 12(2)
