Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Prasar Bharti (Appellant herein) entered into a Broadcasting Licence Agreement (valid: 4 Years), granting Appellant full and exclusive rights of telecasting Cricket Events; Internationals and Domestic matches played in India for a consideration of USD 43.75 million. A dispute arose between the parties for non-delivery of two series (India v. Pakistan & India vs Australia) allegedly by the Petitioner, for which a compensation of USD 5.50 Million was demanded by the Respondent. The parties thus submitted themselves for Arbitration, which resulted in an Award in favour of the Respondent (including pendent lite interest @18 % P.A.). This award was challenged by the Petitioner u/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 before this Court in a petition, while the Respondent also filed a petition for enforcing the Award.
The Court (in Petitioner’s petition) directed the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,37,03,465/- assessed as the shortfall of 7 cricketing days along with pendente lite interest @ 9 per cent per annum with the High Court registry and the same was complied with. The Respondent’s petition was allowed partially (compensation for shortfall of 7 cricketing days granted) while the Tribunal’s award for compensation for shortfall 10 Cricketing was set aside. The Respondent thus again approached this Court for release of the entire amount deposited by the Petitioner with the High Court Registry instead a part of it (as compensation for shortfall of 7 cricketing days instead of 10). This was contested by the Applicant.
Impugned Order:
By the impugned order, the Single Judge ordered the Registry to release of a sum of Rs. 11 Crore in favour of the respondents, holding that; “the appellant is entitled to recovery of only a sum of Rs. 22,43,55,126/- from the respondents herein under the three awards and therefore it would be appropriate to withhold a sum of Rs.22,43,55,126/- out of the sum of Rs.33,69,94,847/-.
Division Bench Findings & Decision:
The Delhi High Court Court recorded the finding that the order challenged was not one that is enumerated in Section 37 and observed that; “We do not find any merit in the contention…that Commercial Courts Act being a subsequent enactment would override the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. There is no inconsistency between the two Acts. Section 11 (1A) categorically states that an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act would be maintainable only against those orders that find mention under Section 37 of the A&C Act. In the absence of any inconsistency, there is no need for this court to go into the issue as to whether the Commercial Courts Act would prevail over the A&C Act and appeals arising out of orders, even those which are not covered under Section 37 of the A&C Act, can be entertained under Section 11 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act. In any event, applying the principle of “generalia specialibus non derogant”, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be considered as a special Act for all proceedings arising under the Act and it would therefore prevail over the Commercial Courts Act which would be treated as a general Act.”
Dismissing the appeal as not being maintainable, the DB held: “The present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order passed in proceedings under Section 36 of the A & C Act, whereby a part of the amount which had been deposited by the appellant in this court, has been directed to be released in favour of the respondents. Under Section 37, no appeal is maintainable from any order passed under Section 36 of the A&C Act. Further, Section 36 of the A&C Act does not attract the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the statue does not provide for an appeal against and order passed under Section 36, it is axiomatic that the present appeal is also not maintainable. The impugned order would neither fall under Order XLIII of the CPC, nor under Section 37 of the A&C Act. Therefore, the present appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, is not maintainable.”
Case Details
Before: Delhi High Court
Parties: Prasar Bharti v M/S Stracon India Ltd. & Anr.
CORAM: Hon'ble Justice Hima Kohli & Hon'ble Justice Subramonium Prasad
Date of Decision: 13.07.2020
Read Order@LatestLaws
