Orissa High Court
Tantra Entertainment Private Ltd vs Ms. Ipsita Pati & Another ...... Opp. ... on 10 August, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIR 2013 ORISSA 146, (2013) 123 ALLINDCAS 388 (ORI), (2013) 121 ALLINDCAS 770 (ORI), (2012) 2 ORISSA LR 1062, (2013) 115 CUT LT 915
Author: M.M. Das
Bench: M.M. Das
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK.
W.P.(C). No. 1690 of 2011
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
-----------
Tantra Entertainment Private Ltd. ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
Ms. Ipsita Pati & another ...... Opp. parties
For Petitioner : M/s. Goutam Mishra &
D.K. Patra
For opp. parties: M/s. Ch. Prasanta Ku Mishra,
A.K. Jena, B. Swain,
Ch. P.K Mishra &
M.K. Acharya.
(For O.P.No.1)
------------------------------------
Date of Judgment: 10.08.2012
------------------------------------
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.M. DAS
M. M. DAS, J.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Company to quash the proceeding pending before the Orissa State Commission for Women-opposite party no.2 vide Complaint No. 71/10 - 11116 dated 5.10.2010 and further to set aside the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the opposite party no.2 under Anneuxre-6.
2. The petitioner is an event Management Company, which has exclusive licence from the Miss Universe Organization LP, LLP for holding a pageant called "I am she 2010". The said pageant was the Indian preliminary to the 2010 Miss Universe and the winner of the 2 said pageant was to represent India at the 2010 Miss Universe pageant. The present opposite party no.1 participated in the said pageant along with 29 other girls. In the said process, the opposite party no.1 entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 24.04.2010. The comprehensive agreement signed between the petitioner and the opposite party no.1, which has been annexed to this writ petition discloses that the contestants agreed to the manner and method of conducting the pageant. Under Clause - 5(f) & (o), it is stated as follows:
"5(f) The Contestant understands and agrees that while her parents or guardian may travel to venue locations to attend the pageant at their own expense, they cannot and shall not influence in any way or seek to control her activities during the Pageant.
5(o) The Contestant agrees that during the Pageant events-
finale and the sub-event she shall not have any access to mobile or other communication devices and all communications during such time shall be made by her through the point of contact as consented to by TEPL."
Anneuxre-2 is the contestant handbook, which according to the petitioner was handed over to each of the contestants on the date of Check-in. The said handbook provided the mode and format of participation. Parents/Family and relatives, who came with the Contestants at the time of check-in at Westin Hotel on 24 th April, 2010, were given the contact number of the petitioner's representative, who could be contacted at any time for any query. It is asserted by the petitioner that their representative was in touch with opposite party no.1's parents as well as all other contestant's 3 parents/relatives and family members, right through the pageant. Ultimately in the preliminary contest called, I am she 2010" one Ms. Ushoshi Sengupta was declared as the winner and the opposite party no.1 did not qualify to be in the final 20 at the pre judging stage. After the contest was over, the opposite party no.1 made allegation, inter alia, that undue favour was shown to some of the participants, the contest was not held in a fair manner and her parents were not informed about her illness. It may be noted here that in the course of the pageant, opposite party no.1 was unwell on a few occasions and the petitioner claims to have provided medical assistance and her parents were also informed about her health condition whenever she was unwell.
3. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 filed a complaint before the opposite party no.2, which is quoted hereunder:
"To The Chairperson, State Commission for Women.
Subject:-Non-transparency, unfair practice, irresponsibility & improper conduct of Miss Universe India 2010 pageant ( I AM SHE) Respected Madam, I Ipsita Pati, D/o. Byomakesh Pati (AGM) working in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, present address Qr. No.201-A Sector-3 Steel Plant township Visakhapatnam-32, & permanent address-flat no.506, Waltair heights Apts, kirlumpdi layout, opp.
A.V. out gate, Cishakhapatnam-17, A.P. have the following allegations against Tantra Entertainment Pct. Ltd. (TEPL) with their registered office at Palatial building, second floor, 21st road, Bandra (w), Mumbai 400050.
4They have never informed my parents out programs, whereabouts details. They have not been fair.
They have inducted a contestant, Pooja Hegde who was not in top 30 till the last week on the main contest which is against the basic principle of fair play.
Thus TEPL has violated fair play & has caused damaged to the dreams of dozen of girls.
They have not been responsible as so far as they have not even informed my parents about my illness, before giving me medication & injections.
I was not allowed to any access to mobile or any communication devices but TEPL agreed all communications during such time (even) shall be made by her (contestant) through the point of contact as consented to by TEPL (above lines are mentioned in the agreement) But I was never allowed to make any call from any unknown assigned numbers.
When I entered the pageant in top 30 my weight was 53 Kgs and when I left on the last day, my weight was 45 Kgs.
Every individual is different.
They have not handled their responsibilities of ensuring maintenance of weight to height ratio of each individual contestant.
They also manipulated in the voting section favouring Pooja Hegde.
Schedule of I AM SHE Training Program Started on 24th April until 28th May.
Our stay was in Westin Hotel, Goregaon, Mumbai.
Then we travelled to Goa from Mumbai in bus & are Dhaba food.
Then from Goa we travelled to Delhi in flight (Spice Jet) & I was not given food till midnight 2 & ate Dhaba food again & we are the same dhaba food when we returned back to Delhi from Chandigarh. Grand finale was on 28th May, Venue NCPM, Mumbai.
On that day my mother has intimated about the abovementioned facts to commissioner of police who was present during the occasion (finale) at about 9pm 10pm I hope you take necessary action.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-Ipsita Pati (D/O. Byomakash Pati, (AGM, VSP) 10.06.2010 Cell-9849084917
-9885370022/9642896866 B. Pati-9989325037"
5
4. On receiving the complaint as aforesaid, the opposite party no.2 issued a notice to Miss Sushmita Sen and the petitioner to file their show cause. The petitioner-Company through its Director, MS. Rebecca Pereira filed its reply to the said complaint, inter alia, stating that the complaint is totally misconceived, untenable and the complainant is guilty of suppresio-veri and suggestion-falsi and further stating that the opposite party no.2-Commission, which has been constituted under the provisions of Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the allegations made in the complaint petition of the opp. party no. 1 nor can investigate/enquire into such allegations, which is regarding allegations and an incident which occurred beyond the territory of the State of Odisha. It was further stated in the reply that the complainant admittedly resides at Visakapatnam. The petitioner-Company is situated at Mumbai, as well as Miss Sushmita Sen resides at Mumbai, inasmuch as the pageant was conducted at Mumbai, Goa, Delhi and Chandigarh. Specifically, the petitioner averred in the reply that Miss Sushmita Sen has been wrongly impleaded as she was merely the brand ambassador and the national Director for the brand " I AM SHE" she was no way connected with the management of the Company or the pageant or the pageant called "I am she 2010" Further, there is absolutely no allegation against Miss Sushmita Sen and as per Clause-17 of the agreement executed between the complaint-opposite 6 party no.1 herein and the petitioner-company provides that in case of any dispute or differences arising out of or in connection with the said agreement, the same shall be settled through arbitration. Since remedy of arbitration was provided under the said agreement in the event of any disputes or differences, the complainant was bound to invoke the said arbitration clause to redress her purported complaints. The present complaint filed before the Hon'ble Commission is thus filed mala fide to cause harassment to the respondent. The said Clause-17 of the agreement further provides that the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai. Thus the complaint has bound herself under the said agreement to seek legal recourse in the Courts/forums at Mumbai alone. The complainant is aware of the said clause, but nevertheless filed the present complaint with ulterior motives. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
5. The moot question, therefore, which requires consideration of this Court in the present writ application, is as to whether opposite party no.2-Orissa State Commission for Women as contended by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed before it in which notice was issued to the present petitioner to file its show cause.
6. It appears from the complaint filed before the opposite party no.2 that the complainant-Miss Ipsita Pati has basically alleged violation of the agreement executed between her and the petitioner- 7 Company on 24.04.2010. The nature of allegations made in the complaint petition clearly comes under Clause - 17 of the agreement, which is as follows:
"In case of any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the parties shall make good faith efforts to resolve such disputes or differences amicably. If the disputes or differences are not resolved, the same shall be settled through arbitration by one arbitrator mutually appointed, failing which by three arbitrators, i.e., one each appointed by the Contestant and TEPL and the third appointed by the two arbitrators so appointed by the parties. The arbitral proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force. The venue of arbitration shall be Mumbai and shall be conducted in English language. The award of the arbitration proceedings will be final and binding on both the parties to this Agreement. The parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai and this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of India."
7. Mr.Mishra, leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the address of the complainant as given by her in the complaint petition is at Visakapatnam. The event took place at Mumbai and no portion of the cause of action, as alleged in the complaint petition, arose within the State of Odisha.
8. The Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 provides that the State Commission for Women shall be constituted by the State Government to perform the functions assigned to it under the Act. The functions of the Commission have been provided in Chapter-III of the said Act. Under the said Chapter in Section 10 (1)
(d), it has been provided that the Commission shall receive complaints. The said sb-section is as follows: 8
"10. Function of Commission- (1) The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) xxx xxx xxx
(d) receive complains on -
(i) atrocities on women and offense against
women.
(ii) deprivation of women of their rights relating to
minimum wages basic health and maternity rights.
(iii) non-compliance of policy decisions of the Government relating to women,
(iv) rehabilitation of deserted and destitute women and woken forced into prostitution,
(v) atrocities on women in custody.
(e) to (g) xxx xxx xxx"
9. The nature of complaint lodged in the instant case does not come under any of the clauses quoted above. The opposite party no.2-Commission being a statutory authority under the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993, which is a State Act, therefore, inevitably cannot exercise jurisdiction on a cause of action which arose beyond the territory of the State of Odisha.
10. In view of the above, this Court finds that the opposite party no.2-Comission lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint lodged by the opposite party no.1-Miss Ipsita Pati. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation to quash the entire complaint registered as Complaint No.71/2010 and the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the opposite party no.2 under Annexure-6. Ordered accordingly.9
11. The writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances without cost. However, the opposite party no.1 is at liberty to take recourse to Clause-17 of the Agreement, strictly in accordance with law. All pending Misc. Cases stand disposed of.
........................
M.M. Das, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
August 10th , 2012/Himansu 10