Paradigm Franchising Pvt. Ltd. vs Krishna Continental Ltd.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1257 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                    Date of Reserve: March 30, 2009
                                                        Date of Order: April 08, 2009

+ CCP (O) 193/2008 in OMP 179/2008
%                                                                              08.04.2009
     Paradigm Franchising Pvt. Ltd.                                     ...Petitioner
     Through : Mr. Gaurav Liberhan, Advocates

        Versus

        Krishna Continental Ltd.                        ...Respondent
        Through : Mr. Vikas Dhawan and Mr.S.P. Das, Advocates


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


        JUDGMENT

1. By this contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of

Courts Act it is prayed that this Court should initiate contempt proceedings

against respondents for violation of the order dated 25th April 2008.

2. This Court vide order dated 25th April 2008 had allowed an application

of the petitioner company under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation

Act, 1996 and directed the respondent that it shall allow the petitioner use of

L-5 License (for liquor) issued in the name of the respondent and the request

of the petitioner for liquor shall be forwarded by the respondent on its

letterhead to the concerned authority on the same day and the petitioner

shall be paying taxes/ fees to the authorities and shall pursue with concerned

department for supply of liquor in time. The petitioner was to pay directly to

the authorities for the liquor purchased in this manner and was to keep the

CCP 193.08 in OMP 179.08 Paradigm Franchising Pvt. Ltd. vs Krishna Continental Ltd. Page 1 Of 3 respondent indemnified as agreed vide agreement dated 10th May 2005.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that this order of the Court was not

complied with and the respondent did not handover its letterheads to the

petitioner for applying to the excise department for liquor.

4. This Court had not given a direction to the respondent to give its

letterheads to the petitioner. The only direction given by the Court was that

the petitioner shall specify its requirement to the respondent and respondent

shall, on the same day, forward this requirement on its letterheads

mentioning the license number etc to the concerned authorities for liquor.

The everything rest was to be done by the petitioner viz. pursuing with the

authorities, get the liquor and pay the price. The license fee for keeping the L-

5 License alive was to be borne by the petitioner as provided in the

agreement. However, the petitioner did not pay to the respondent the license

fees of Rs.5, 74,800/- for the year 2008-09. Vide its letter dated 27th February

2009, the petitioner informed the respondent that claim of Rs.5,74,800/- as

license fee for L-5 License for the year 2008-09 was not admitted by it since it

was not allowed to use L-5 license by refusing to issue letterheads despite the

order of the Court. The petitioner took the stand that it will pay the license fee

on pro-rota basis for the period of 2008-09 since its use was hindered by the

respondent. Regarding license fee for the year 2009-10, the petitioner

demanded that it should be given 300 letterheads by the respondent marked

"For Excise and L-5 Purpose only" and then only it would pay the license fee.

5. Since it was the liability of the petitioner to pay the license fee for L-5

License in terms of the contract, the petitioner cannot insist upon availing this

CCP 193.08 in OMP 179.08 Paradigm Franchising Pvt. Ltd. vs Krishna Continental Ltd. Page 2 Of 3 facility without payment of license fee. No direction was given by this Court to

give letterheads in advance to the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to

pay license fees for the year 2008-09, I, therefore, find no force in this

contempt petition. The contempt petition, as far as this ground is concerned,

is not maintainable.

6. The other ground taken by the petitioner is that the petitioner was not

allowed to use the passage from the back entrance as directed by this Court

for ingress to the restaurant, as per the agreement. The petitioner has placed

on record some photographs showing that the door of the ingress was closed.

The respondent also placed photographs of the door showing that the door

was open and a guard of the petitioner had been deployed at the door. The

respondent also drew attention of this Court to the cross examination of the

petitioner witness recorded before the learned Arbitrator wherein it was

admitted by the witness that the rear entrance was open and a guard had

been posted by the petitioner. In view of this cross examination and

testimony of the petitioner witnesses before the Arbitrator, I consider that no

contempt is made out on this count also.

7. In view of the foregoing situation, I find no force in this contempt

petition. The contempt petition is hereby dismissed.

April 08, 2009                                          SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd

CCP 193.08 in OMP 179.08 Paradigm Franchising Pvt. Ltd. vs Krishna Continental Ltd. Page 3 Of 3