TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....networks and Direct-to-Home networks in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be specified. As per sub-Section (2) of Section 3, the terms and conditions under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 were to provide that the advertisement revenue sharing between the content rights owner or holder and Prasar Bharati shall be in the ratio of not less than 75 : 25 in case of television coverage and 50 : 50 in case of radio coverage. 2. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 7 of the Act, the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Rules 2007 were promulgated. Rule 4 whereof required a sealed bid procedure to be adopted inter-se the rights owner or holder and Prasar Bharati concerning marketing of commercial time generated by the re-transmission on the Prasar Bharati's channel. Needless to state the higher bidder was entitled to undertake the marketing of commercial time. The bid amount was the minimum guaranteed amount. The party obtaining the marketing rights was to give a bank guarantee to the other party for an amount equal to the other party's share of guaranteed revenue. The said party was to receive all payments from third parties w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vi. India - Sri Lanka, 2009 Nimbus India 6. Since the interim award, challenge whereto by Nimbus India has failed before the learned Single Judge, concerns the dispute only pertaining to India-Australia, 2007 Cricket Series including a T-20 Match played on October 20, 2007, the India-England 2008 Series, India-Sri Lanka 2009 Series and India-Bangladesh-Pakistan 2008 Series, in respect of which series, as noted above, for two Nimbus India was the higher bidder and for two Nimbus Singapore was the higher bidder, we note in a tabular form the bid amount, Prasar Bharati's entitlement of 25% of the bid amount as the minimum guaranteed revenue, the net revenue claimed to be generated by Nimbus India and Nimbus Singapore and 25% thereof, with amount due to Prasar Bharati being 25% of the minimum bid amount subject to increase if revenue generated was in excess. The tabular statement would read as under:- Series Bid of Nimbus Singapore/Nimbus India Entitlement of Prasar Bharati as per Bid (25 %) of Net Revenue Earned as per Nimbus Singapore/ Nimbus India 25% of Net Revenue Earned Amount due to Prasar Bharati as per the figures provided by Nimbus Singapore/ N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....626/- payable to it. (v) That Prasar Bharati was entitled to Rs. 2,52,50,000/- and Rs. 1,75,50,000/- from Nimbus Singapore for the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh and India-Sri Lanka Series and it owed Rs. 15,37,500/- to Nimbus Singapore for the India Bangladesh Series 2007. Thus the net amount payable to Nimbus Singapore is Rs. 4,12,62,500/-. (vi) That Nimbus India had procured from Nimbus Singapore the mandate to adjust the said amount against Rs. 7,66,06,626/- owned by Prasar Bharati. 12. Obviously a dispute arose. As noted above, only one agreement was executed concerning the Indo-Pak Series 2007 and thus Nimbus India invoked the arbitration agreement and nominated their arbitrator. Prasar Bharati nominated its arbitrator and the two nominated the third. The Arbitral Tribunal came into existence. 13. The nature of the claim by Nimbus India, as would be evident from hereinabove had the element of adjustments inter-se Nimbus India and Prasar Bharati as also Nimbus Singapore and Prasar Bharati. The Arbitral Tribunal therefore rightly advised the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement referring the disputes concerning the cricket series referred to paragraph 4 above and thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... para 9 above. 16. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal revenue generations statements was filed by the parties. The revenue generation statements filed by Nimbus India and Nimbus Singapore contained an admission of liability towards Prasar Bharati. 17. On July 17, 2013, Prasar Bharati filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for an order directing Nimbus India to secure the amount in dispute. On September 13, 2013, Prasar Bharati filed an application for an interim award. Immediately, Nimbus India filed an application to amend its reply and counter claim. The proposed amendment seeks to embrace an alleged dispute concerning India- England Series 2006, in respect of which we simply highlight that the arbitration agreement between the parties does not encompass said series and prima-facie any claim concerning the same would be barred by limitation. 18. Arguments were heard by the Arbitral Tribunal on the application filed by Prasar Bharati for an interim award on November 11, 2013. After counsel for Prasar Bharati concluded submissions, time was sought by learned counsel for Nimbus India to reply and the matter was adjourned to Febru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sum of Rs. 22,77,67,422/- was not deposited an interim award shall follow automatically and since compliance was not made, on December 11, 2014 a formal order was passed declaring that an interim award had come into effect on the date when order dated September 16, 2014 was not complied with. Issue of interest was left open, to be decided at the final stage. 23. The amount as directed to be deposited vide order dated September 16, 2014 was not deposited. The order dated September 16, 2014 was challenged by Nimbus India by way of AA No. 30/2014. By an order dated October 31, 2014 passed in the said proceedings, the learned Single Judge directed Nimbus India to file an affidavit regarding its unencumbered assets in India. The affidavit was never filed. 24. On December 11, 2014 the Arbitral Tribunal clarified that on account of the failure of Nimbus India to deposit the amount as per order dated September 16, 2014, the interim award stood passed automatically. 25. Challenge to the interim award has failed before the learned Single Judge. OMP No. 60/2015 filed by Nimbus India has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated April 06, 2015. 26. Arguing the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was that Nimbus Singapore had assigned the debts and the claims to it and thus with respect to the transactions between Prasar Bharati and Nimbus Singapore vis-a-vis those between Prasar Bharati and Nimbus India the question of inter-se equitable set off would inherently not arise. Further, Nimbus India could not raise for purposes of its counter claim any issue concerning India-England 2006 Series because the transaction between the said parties was not a subject matter of the arbitration proceedings. 33. The fact that for the India-Pakistan 2007 Series the dealings were between Prasar Bharati and Nimbus India and for two other series the dealings were between Prasar Bharati and Nimbus Singapore shows that the dealings were not arising from the same transaction or connected therewith. 34. The series were spread over from 2007 to 2009. They were not series in continuation. Separate bid arrangements were made for each series. Therefore, it cannot by any stretch of reasoning, except a convulsed reasoning, be said to be a case of dealings arising out of or connected with the same transaction. 35. Just because Nimbus India in its letter dated May 16, 2009 sought to make adjustments ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found to be tenable, it remains only a claim. 41. In contending that the interim award was an award based on default on non-compliance of the order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, we find that Nimbus India is taking advantage of indulgence granted to it by the Tribunal on two prior occasions. The applications under Section 17 and the application for passing an interim award were heard together. In the order dated May 06, 2014 the Tribunal has recorded in categorical terms that it was a fit case to pass an interim award, but for the time being was granting an opportunity to Nimbus India to furnish a bank guarantee. Subsequently, the application was further heard. The Tribunal again recorded that it was a fit case to pass an interim award but made a direction to Nimbus India to deposit the amount. In the said order it was recorded that if the direction is not complied with, an interim award would follow. Therefore, the interim award is based on the finding that Nimbus India had made decisive admissions. Those admissions have not been denied even when the appeal was heard. The Tribunal also recorded that the counter claim was yet to be established. In ....