EN THEE 2-31%: COURT' (>13 KARNaTAKA, BgNGALQ;R :é:;"
DATED was THE 31% DAY' 01:' JULY 2002:: V "
BEFQRE
THE H(}N'BLE MR. JUS'FI{';E R}w1:1§§4AL1M;xffE-E
way. No. 224212®S"~s§M§é?Ci
BE'Z"WEEN:~ %
M13. ZEE mawss LIMITED, "A __ ,.
HAVTNG ITS REGISTERED :;;;N''1'3%_At~:«:':::_:_ _ __
HKVENG nsfs BRAWH Cwiiifg
AT N0. 3RB._FLO'f)R," =
UNITED MA?€SI'ONf:§,V *
39991.9. ROAD, * V '
BANGri';Lf3RE, '
4,3313. B;.'~.ei%_i':'s- - V V
AUfmoR';s:fa:;3 $;@NAT@-ivy",
"MR. g%NuL3?_VGHA§§$'DVRASHEKARAN.
' (BY S'Ri"UD£&Y2V§i_I%.i3LLA, S;¥3'.;NiC}R SOUNSEL FOR
PE'I'i'f'EONER
M; S. Hs'--f}Li~gA mm HGLLA, ADVGCATE}
«A ,,
'._ C§.f§PAP§'f E}I'~E'}"ERPR£SE8',
;{}E3AYARANGzi PICTURES,
W1 'B' STREET',
C%A§*éi)HIE\iAGPsR,
BANGALGRE « 9,
REP. BY ITS PRGPRIETGR,
MR. KP. SRIKANTH,
EAVING NEW OFFICE
851' MAMATHA APARTMENTS,
'A' BLOCK, 13'? FLOOR,
-41"" MAIN ROAI3,
GAWDHENAGAR,
BANGALORE ---> 9.
EM}
ASIANET COMMUNICZATEONS L*1':),,
ASIANET CQMIPLEX,
PULEYARKONAM 23.0., ~
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM --- §955?3,
KERALA, ' ._
Havlysza ITS BRMCH O§'F'§CE:"=
AT N0. 292, _ ..
EMBASSY BUILDING, ' ' u V
OPP. POLECEZ CDMMESSIQNAER'S{_E3§F'i?I§.?3E';,'~
:Np'A:éTRY€'RQ;;'£§,, "' 7- '\
BANGALQRE2.y-"'$€:{)QG3,;* ~
REP. 333' :'r3«..}j._ 4' _ _
MANA#.:_}EN_G t;£Ri.i3z€?:I'€:»:~2';,%.'j%*-._,,_ -
* ' ' V . ' RES?()I\§DEN"I3
gay SR1" }§{}f}3{A§":?A' 5;; 'c:1,'ADvo{:,a'rES ma {:1 R2}
,*'{BY_SRi__i"§AEgé§8'?s£AMY"; 'AB-¥,'0GATE FOR
$i§'i.Sfi{i'§i§H'€3. mxxaa, ADV€Z)CA'}"E mm R~1}
'E33323 PRAYINC': TC} SET ASIDE THE'; ORDER
«Q? 'E'§§Ej44TRI£;L' mi 1112.203? ?§§SS£?;D IN LA.E'€(}.2 Em
_' ..__e:;i$.Na.5:3:'9g!2G0? 'mm ANNEXE. 95: THE FILE 0:? 'I'.'£~iE cm'
' AS12512 t';i_€_)i§f?'£', 8AN{'iu%L€)RE.
V __ 'Wfii pcfitian samizxg on far hearing this day, the
T -.§C:,it;:'ur't made the fei1c:2Wir;g:--
<1<;/Q_r-«~---
ORDER
Being aggrieved by the order dated 17′.12.20()’? passed__ ‘{3};
the V Add}. City Civi} Judge, Bangalore an
O.S,N0.:”5019/C37′, the pzainnffi’ has preferred this writ–‘j§éfi:i{;: 1ni.;:”‘ *
2. Tbs plamfifl filed a suit sec1{it1g:1’f<jf'Té1 <£iT»1:a'§,v*A§:':fif311:VV
fiI'St defendant to perform his abiigfiiign fifid¢rVthé§ }§§s_§:ignEie:1t. * L'
Agreament dated 2.2.2208?' andvAV…f;§:*v._§a;'mé£1ént_ipfiuncfien
rcstraimng the éefendants :»«5t§%3,<: rights of the
plaintiff unr;i:::"-?§',?1:*.:'«'i'€;:*r=.r;t§;;icr censtzquentiai miiefs'
3. f.:é;.é’E Qrdeatr 39 Rules 1 and 2 eff CFC
seeking _f€:::r seréer of temparazy I¥.i’1j13I’iCtiO}I1
5.._'”{3f1€'”~ A.def€iid’f3;:’1’t’s from broadcastilzg tha kannada
mgbvié V’S’é1’mVih;aa’A <:'i4:€:A._ "
4, ~ trial Court ardered summons an the suit as W311
§s2 £-‘:1:VcV I’}’;’?_L«§. Eeing aggrisved by the 1′:0:1-c6n3’Kie:*ation cf Esau-D}?
fiiainfifi” pX’€fE:I”£’€{.”§ §§f.¥’.N@. 1851:’?/Q’? ivilsrein tha isratned
‘éiéingie Juége by his ands: dated m.’?.2GG’? éaciined :9 imtarfezm
06;,/’
but hawever obsfitrved, that the trial éfimirt.
agprcapriate orders immediately afzer service of 11<::fi<::€ .' ~
of notice, the firs: defendant filed LA.-§£ _u./.s_._ 43 e:;':1?:e"§é$;.:i§ii§ra{::;,;;:;.,_
and Rezconcifiatieix Act, 1996 seeking :'e:f€&re;=§iC€'iV0fTTt"i1€~ flax:
an Arbitrator. Tbs trig} Court h3«*»TVt1fi;::..im;Q§i1gVi1c£1 {‘6
the C{}IiCh1S§€3}f}. that cerxsiécyation for wouifi
arisa $131}? after the the matter to
arbimation in terms. Qf §.:§;.+–i:.F._. ma} Court
§roc@¢=:d.ed 12:3 order, LA.-4! was
aliewad and “tkigeiv Iiéturnfid it} the plaintifi
for i3I”€£3t’i£l’E’:§ti€3_fI3:,A 1_’ Hence, the prasezxt
Writ Petitionf 4′
‘~ xl?da3?Lé;:}Vi’§31ii%a, lcarneii Semis: Counsai appeaxixig
oft; :Vi&¥:%¢’4fii§t¥§f:i.cners cmlnsai contends mat the iris}; {hurt
=».3c;,as §§0:;%m.i§%c+:i;: emor in gassing the impugned order mad
~ jV~-V’§1dgr5::1c:e iiiifiifgéénce is Cailed fer. Ha submiis that the erézzr flf tbs
{‘§%i§:*{ is err<:z11e::m$ in as: much as {hfi scconé defandani is
4, %5'J:V€:I'€d aiimmtian ané fiance I16 azzbitzatiim vsmuid 1315 near
czxfier Qi' an arbitrate: couié be enfomfiabie against him. By
W
placiflg rezliance on the Deed sf Assignmsnt, he <:ani;cnd$___t}1at
afbitratien would be availabifi is such persons Whfl
:0 the original agreement and 1101: ms any 'third person; .
contenés that if the trial Cczsuxrt. was Qf M1;1_1e “‘ ‘V
matter is to be refbrred is arbitI=ation,V’».:4th§”‘C;:§uf’t._Vsl§€:’:”fl?;iV:?t::aV:;
consiéermti i.A.~I as an appiicafioni S. a:;=_f :hc 32rf’b ‘i§;*é4.§;Qn_:’§A¢i
anti tlmrfiafter shank}. passed the 9%tiac:;’Yfhef£;fo:’€, he
caxitends that {ha same fiat i.1£:::V:L’éc:}r;:_’.(;i1’éi::<1e, thfi émpugxied
enier is bad in iaw calls A,'fQf:7.i§3.§f:.i%f€iE€I1f:B,.' V 1
6' I1; I:-;i{' .._a;0n't_eI1tj011, he relisd upen me
éiacision gepgrtsa if,'AI3~*::._:""<:2aQ4 MAQRAS 344 (ms,
M?sNG}'i.;=%.§3.%MM§ ENVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. -VS~.
I-T’;.,§1′;”::;,AA’§13:~;;:é;’A 1~:s’_’ir..’:’B:_(s 1′;*i*fi. mm GTHERS); AER 2903 SC 2252
($E;%.§{g:,;1~1.*§*A:§}:»s;§L§§§:§:{:<sss W2: 59:). »»-"%.?S~, JAYESE-E :55 Fskféfi-YA
"'=–*.aM~: §*;?§E'{}'¥'HE1'R}:E;.'Ti2G$6} 3 s<::<:: 4:9 {SAEVEEZER BMAR A§%"~fD
4’mE::%s »::::s?;. RATAE BHUSHM Jam AND GTHERS}; (2004) 6
§%§§’j::>. 339323 –v3–. SE§GI’*%BRILf:r %§AEBU)x
qfi,»
?. On the other hand Sri Haiaswamy, 1ea1*11m”..,&
defendant bsing an assignee steggs
defendant and hence the 211″ d€f€Igdi3§’:§i’i.’-‘fig dA§.€ém¢(}–.fijv_:bé*–;g6v€:§;1ed ”
by arb’itration 3150″ He ther;%1″0.;’€ C€’li’i’E{=;V£.3V¥;.’i:=:’VVt3*’:.«’_:3ft, $115 23¢ détfcndalit
is next a stranger to the stepped mtg
SI10€S of the 1st defitiitftant gay tile orders in
arbitration. in relied upan the
decisiorgg rC[30tf3″:¢iif£§:V’.’ .~ESC; 2182 (OLYMPUS
IVIEENA WJAY KI-EETAN
AND 0’*I’1+iE,-$28)”; 431 (DE) {SJKLVIJAYAKUMAR
__;vfs~ RAViKU}%’§A:If§_ mi) <m~§§;Rsf; ANB AER 209? (me;
A’1;:;:,**rfV'{z2g;&;i._)V {$3A§§1:?:i11i-“‘1.~:f:{$<;»%I\,%'§1s':.' «§§'?s:i:E;i§:§~i"A*r:0':~:AL LTE1
V' 'A Poavayya, isarned ceunsei appaazing for the End
rg:s§.x.:¥i:':ié:1t contends that the 'Em d&fem:ia§.1: having aztquireé
T . _ c70'2;1¥:1*a(:1:"£1a1 rights, me Gififif Sheulé be yasseci by £it11e:* 0f £116
fbmms withsut giving 3 r€:a$o:1a'b16 cppafiufiitg ta make 231;: his
aim'
case. He: placed 1'€1i8_I1C€ on documents to support his .,
ssaici property.
8g (33 haaring all counsels, [$%ir=_: éa. figat
impugned order Calls for ir1te:1°i”E:i°::I1{:i:__fi*:31: the ViL’:~.1ie’ex?§11’g iegsonéz
a) The triai Court L§;€3.£;:};~s:#£::”v%§£1w§:eI;sid€1ing LA.-H,
came to the concltllfi-‘1§12._ a mattttr
arising out of of the arhitratien
clause. ‘?he_.ca1.1$€’..v;._§f” bifurcated benvfien {ha
1%’: anci by placing reliance on the
agrriament {£0 that the ?;fl5~ defendant is; also
v4.gQ§em&é.§:«:’:9fig the 8:f§if.1;ff&%M’:E£OI1’V:a3ia11S€ and hence the 2″ dsfendant is
gigs; habjle §fié:4,a;~§iaafien.
of the trial (taint can this issue is srranaous
_. ‘Aagfii §ia.b§é’tTne set aside, The H0:1’b1e Supreme Court eaf india in
A “:%§.:§_c:ag§”..*repmed in me 2093 SC 22252 gszjxareya §~iQLE’2iNGS
. ‘j—-‘§%§f:§_’§LT:>. -»-vs”? JAYESH Rs PPsP€I}YA ANS ANOTHER} ‘ms heid
VA *~ as f0}10Ws:–
<;\/34.»
"I 6. The next question which requireg 7
consideration is – even there is no provifiion
partfy referring the dispute in arbitratiorg whe;':f:er..' 5 _.__
such a, caurse is petéssible under Section. 8 9f ifw[!§ct?.TV " "
In car view, it waufefi be dfljfimli is __.r;ri::;e_”‘V».x;1.r:.. ‘
interpretation to Sectien 8 under w?<:ieI:,– fif VV V
the cause of acticm {hat is to say :£he s;ubjet;'; inaiiér H
cf the suit or in some cases b1fuf(x1ti»:}n'of t'?:?e"3u£i« ~ TA
beiween pcerzies who are pcriies tcb'pzhz:3 arfiifiaiiérz'
agreement and others £3 pus_S'ébfe. This V2z_:::}uV3d"«»._l7eV
laying down 6% tataliy pro<:Sezr2zi:'Te rig:
ooniemplaied under the Aci,.—-.{f°’biji.:rm£iofz gf £169
subject matter of at was’ m;:1,ié2npiated,” the
Eegtisiature would have “award appréizgafiairg Eanguage is
permit such. (1 course’ urié :£h€rre wi.{S. $19 such
z’ndioation in Iqngnzdge,” .ii§fti’I¥.Q”:Lss tizaz” §:ai:furoa,Ii9n
of the subject :?’;::1;:’ier “rgrf an~*’VaC2iofi–..E2rp;;g’hi before a
judicial a.2_,:€5’z€2~tfi£3;,i_1f:_”~;’.m:;1:_a_li§};z2ed. 1;’ . V
13?’, _Sec74~;jn_diy, sm,:C}1V bgzfzircaiien of suit in $190
pa.ris;”-one 250 be fiaée arfiizraf trihunai anti
other is-_ be ‘t:ie¢id§’ed4″..¢1gj.i;=”‘ihe citsii Cow”: woufd
irzeviiabiyfiefag thepfi:-.¢e’edings. ‘I’he wi/zoie purpose
af gspeedy Vc2i.$pt;s’af cf dispufe and degzreasirzg the
<jfa}s3:: pf lizig<i£'i::.n_____wau§d be fmstraied by surf;
. Vp'§"m3ei:"$i:ré; It we-ufd fiziso :'m.:r*ease the cast €}ff2'1'igG,fi0?'£.
‘ –.ELa:rc:3$’m_en£ to the parties and on occasiorts
.g§2eire. ‘i.$”p<:«$$1iZ9iEity 0f mnflicting judgments and
" Aarders 'by dxffereni fanuns; "
A }ie1:ie:;cf_; 3 by agépkying the Saié. _§udgmeni, i’m sf ihzie
‘»:{0I§fisi:1¢ §ii;$ View ‘£1113′: 1:316: cause ef acfion, which couifi as’: he
the 2″ éefcndant béing net Bahia fer arbitraiiomg the
‘~.. §:n91zgne::i o;*»:isr iiiififftiflg ratmn of tbs yiaint to be presentsé
<23",
ii)
The decision reiied upon by the 183111661 Counsel appt:a.ri,11g
for the 1%’ defendant is misplaced in View cf the fact that no
questicsn has been raisfid xvii}: mgard to the competzzncy “the
Arbitrater ta’; éacide the W prayer. It is n§I’3’£iOi’}:’~*;)}C:”1:.;£T’){‘§’
.I”f31i8I1CE placed umiier ths said jBdgii§¥f’::f1?:%7Oi;11i§:
€29 ‘Fhe trig} €3mu*t Wiiiié canciusion féhat
it has I10 ihsrefore, the fpiaint be
staifieraci to ‘E5 Ej£’fii”§§.I1}’€Ei 3L%i;.A7L.%1g€5’ far prasentatiazz beferr: ‘aha
fssrsriim. tfifi §r5i%1’aiaI.*, has failsii £8 cc3:1$ié€z: the
E”<:§§:' €32: §.A.-i £22311 iheugh the Cjgmlrt. came
toli fiilfi SCG}}("3 sf }iTig83ZiOI1 is b€§»*0fi.e:i that sf
"§h§ 3h{3u};d have fiirecied itself ink: cgnsidezéng
fer i..§.2;§é£11€Z§§G§i even while retaining the piaimt, §'3'aj},ure af
":0 ccnsicigr E1316 i.£;.«~E 110% withstamiixzg flax erdem
"–;§a3sé& <33: E555;-if is ffififfifflif unguaiaixxabis.