Delhi High Court has rejected the petition filed by Haryanvi singer Sapna Chaudhary challenging the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision in favour of production company MX Media and Entertainment Ltd.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while delivering the judgement, noted that the objections raised in the petition were not substantial, leading to the dismissal of the petition along with pending applications.
“By way of present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter, the ‘A&C Act’), the petitioner/judgement debtor (Chaudhary) has raised objections to the Award dated 31.10.2022 (hereafter, the ‘impugned award’) delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Sole Arbitrator (hereafter, ‘AT’),” the court said.
“The impugned award was delivered in the context of Services and Alliance Agreement dated 12.04.2019 (hereafter, the ‘Agreement’) and amended on 22.05.2019. The respondent/claimant/award holder (MX Media) has claimed itself to be a company engaged in the business of production, development, marketing and distribution of media and entertainment content,” the court further stated.
It clarified, “The petitioner, a renowned artist in the entertainment industry, had received a sum of Rs 2.5 crore as an advance payment under the Services and Alliance Agreement. Disputes arose when the judgement debtor issued a post-dated cheque for Rs 2 crore towards refund, which was not encashed.”
Disputes escalated as the decree holder (MX Media) claimed a breach of exclusivity when Chaudhary uploaded a music video on YouTube.
Settlement talks failed, resulting in Chaudhary terminating the Agreement. The Arbitral Tribunal partially allowed the claim, awarding Rs.2 crores with interest. The decree holder filed three claims, including the advance payment, damages for breaches, and damages to goodwill.
The AT rejected the second and third claims due to lack of substantiation and evidence. Justice Ohri dismissed Chaudhary’s contention that the award was against the public policy of India, stating,
“The contention is bereft of any basis and is thereby rejected.” “Reliance by the judgement debtor on the decision is entirely misplaced as in the said decision the parties had reached a written MoU containing recitals thereby cancelling the earlier Agreement,” the Judge said.
“The issuance of post-dated cheque on 05.02.2020 also did not novate the earlier Agreement. Concededly, the Draft Settlement Agreement prepared at the instance of decree holder was never signed by the judgement debtor,” the judge further said in his order.
“Judgement debtor has only raised a bald contention that the award is against the Public Policy of India without any further explanation. The contention is bereft of any basis and is thereby rejected,” the judge ordered.
20231116162834
