Calcutta High Court
Sourav Ganguly vs Mahuaa Media Pvt. Ltd on 11 March, 2014
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
AP No.827 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SOURAV GANGULY
-Versus-
MAHUAA MEDIA PVT. LTD.
Appearance:
Ms. Manali Bose, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Ms. Sanchari Chakraborty, Adv.
...for the respondent.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 11, 2014.
The Court : This matter has been pending for a long time and was adjourned on several occasions on the ground of parties attempting a settlement. It had been made clear to the parties that the matter would not be adjourned indefinitely.
Since the disputes between the parties have not been resolved, the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is taken up for hearing.
The petitioner, a former captain of the Indian cricket team, entered into an agreement with the respondent under which the petitioner was to host a programme on the respondent's television channel. The agreement envisaged a minimum guaranteed amount of Rs.1.25 crore to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner during the first year and a minimum amount of Rs.1.50 crore to be paid during the second year "even if (the respondent) does not, for whatever reason, utilize the services of (the petitioner), for the said 50 days." The agreement contains a termination clause and it is not the respondent's case that the respondent has terminated or attempted to terminate the agreement.
The petitioner says that in view of the exclusivity clause in the agreement, the petitioner could not appear in similar television programmes on other channels and, as such, the petitioner is entitled to the minimum guaranteed amount, if not the entirety of the amount payable to the petitioner under the agreement. The petitioner says that the respondent is in impecunious circumstances and is unable to pay its debts. The poor financial condition of the respondent and its associate concerns has been noticed on a previous petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act pertaining to another similar agreement.
Since the respondent has no immediate answer to the claim and the respondent does not offer to secure the minimum guaranteed amount, there will be an order of attachment in respect of premises No.249 and 250, Harinagar Ashram, New Delhi- 110014 described at paragraph 37 of the petition till the petitioner's claim is satisfied or the award, if any, in the arbitral reference is discharged.
A.P.No.827 of 2013 is allowed as above without any order as to costs. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) A/s.