Real Image Media Technologies Pvt … vs M/S Salvos Publicities Private … on 3 June, 2009

-2-
This Civii Misc. Petitisn Gaming on tgr

admission thia éay, the Court made  th§
ioéiowimgz " " "'

QEQEE
The petitioner has :1i§d  £§ig ge$it;@fi¢:f
under Section li{b} or rtpe  R§@jt§ati%fi_:afi§ 
Conciiiation Act, 199% (£5%flfl@O%E_?fifi€ Eat';
to: appvintment otj%fi Ar@é%§é§§%gtQ r%S$;ve a
disputa, which gas ag;g§m ¢¢g 6f @fi§}3greement

dated 2Q,U4;2Q$€; 'f"

2; The petitggnar and the respondent had

§nté§efiuVint¢V_an agreement dated 20.84.2061

.]’feapa§§efit ta ca~marK@t scream advertiging at
V° V.d2§@iafi theatérs idemtiiie$ by the getitiener.
nit” is iurthéx’ contended. th&t the respondent

began contracting its clients and displaying

{Aflfiéxu:é:TFfi?}» in terms at whicfi the

petitioné;. Comierred the flight fig the

advaztisements in ceLiuLoid format in tha vezy

same digitai fiheaterg in direct cofittaventisn

fig

-3-

of tha contract. The petitioner aiter several

warnings to the respendemt, reiused to ageegfi

any” mate Qrders to advertise ifipfir§fthe ”

zespondent. The respondent aise de£afiited«:u =

making Qaymants due trcm. ~thefiy’af0 “wth&

petitioner. ?he respondent ifistitutéi a suit

in O.S.I\¥<:s.255éE3/2008 aga: fL'i?;S'i:, thé'.. p'et:f~;::ener
seeking to en§o:¢éT_a yfiéye& aQutside the
@urv1ew' oi the COnE$%Ct;A3 %hé5fTfiai Court

aiter pefiW§$W§7théCc§5ir5Q§ dafed 2U.U4.2U0€

reier:efi°th§gmaffiEfi=fie afbifration in terms oi
Ciause ;8,VThefeaité:;_the petitiomar on its

part nomifiated an arbitrator and intimated the

"ppesgéndant hérein Vida its notice dated

:23;i@,2@U$£fi fiQwever, the resp0ndentT did not

aéréé :dfi_9 appaintment at an arbitrate:

'2$ugQfiBt§fi by the petitioner in its notice

'~}L<-:;:€s;ér;2. :59.:m.2ma. As the respondent did not

'°cfimp:y with the demand made in tha aaid

' .notice, he is constrained. ta approach thia

Court.