Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)Section 21 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Century Spinning & Manufacturing ... vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal Council And ... on 27 February, 1970
6. Therefore, Clause 1.2 of Part-I was an assurance to the appellant that the channel would remain free to air. The learned Counsel referred to various clauses of the agreement between BCCI and Prasar Bharati as well as in the Tender Enquiry forming part of contract between the appellant and Prasar Bharati, in order to demonstrate that it was almost a representation/assurance held out be Prasar Bharati to the appellant that during the period of this agreement the DD Sports Channel would remain free to air. Otherwise, according to the appellant, it would not have given bid for such a high amount of MAR. The learned Counsel also referred to documents showing that there were complaints of red action in viewership after DD Sports Channel had become encrypted channel. No doubt, according to him, the viewership was increasing steadily as it has increased for 6 to 10 millions and then 12 to 13 million over a period of time, it was still much less than 70 millions the figure projected in the tender enquiry. It was submitted that the principle of Estoppel by representation applied and Prasar Bharati was estopped from converting the channel into encrypted channel. According to learned Senior Counsel, representation of fact that channel was free to air was a representation which would constituter estoppel within the mention of Section 115 of the Evidence Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. and Another v. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Another, .
Sundaram Finance Ltd vs Nepc India Ltd on 13 January, 1999
9. We may state at the outset that we do not think that the petition under Section 9 is not maintainable and we do not agree with the preliminary objections raised by the learned Counsel appearing for Prasar Bharati. Correspondence between the parties amply demonstrates that the appellant had tried to persuade the respondent to reconvert the channel into free to air channel. It also demonstrates that there were discussions between the parties. Prasar Bharati did not agree and specifically rejected the request of the appellant by letter dated 25th September, 1999. Thereafter only the appellant filed the petition and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant did not attempt conciliation before resorting to arbitration. Insofar as the arguments of Prasar Bharati that appellant did not take serious steps for initiation of arbitration proceedings, we find that the appellant has already named its Arbitrator. Moreover, in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd., , it has been held by the Apex Court that initiation of arbitration proceedings would not be a pre-condition for filing petition under Section 9 of the Act. What is important is manifest intention to have the dispute referred to an Arbitral Tribunal. The Court further held that a situation may so demand that a party may choose to apply under Section 9 of an interim measure even before issuing a notice contemplated by Section 21 of the said Act. When such an application is made the Court is to satisfy itself that there exists a valid arbitration agreement and the applicant intends to take the dispute to arbitration. Once it is so satisfied the Court will have the jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 9 giving such interim protection as the facts and circumstance warrant. In any case it was always open to the Court to pass conditional order in Section 9 petition as is clear from the following observations in the said judgment:
Section 115 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
1