IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 Arb.A.No. 1 of 2008(A) ------------------------------- OPARB.298/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------- GALAXY VISION, CABLE T.V.NET WORK, 1/164-A, VIYYUR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ANANDAN, S/O. KRISHNA MENON, WANDILATH HOUSE, VIYYUR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.1: ------------------------ 1. RADHAKRISHNAN K.K., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY KURUP, KALLAT HOUSE, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JOSEPH C.D., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. LATE DEVASSY, CHAKKOLA HOUSE, PANANCHERRY, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR. 3. ANILAN K.R., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. RAVICHANDRAN, KANDARUTHY HOUSE, PUTHUR, KAIPARAMBU, THRISSUR. 4. RAJESH A.V., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN A.A., ARIYEDATH HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBU, KUTTUR, THRISSUR. 5. SANTHOSH JOSE, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. JOSE, PURATHOOKKARAN HOUSE, ARANATTUKARA, THRISSUR. ARBA. NO.1/2008 6. DINESAN P.N., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, KOLANGATTUKARA, P.O. CHOOLISSERY, THRISSUR. 7. V.J. RAFI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. V.L. JOSE, VADUKKOOTT HOUSE, KIRALOOR, P.O. MUNDOOR, THRISSUR. 8. VINOD ABRAHAM, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. ITHIA VEERA ABRAHAM, HOUSE NO.16, SILK NAGAR, P .O. PERINGANDOOR, THRISSUR. 9. SURESH M.P., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. PANJAPPU, MANJAKATTIL HOUSE, PERINGANDOOR, THRISSUR. 10. GOPI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAHMANIAN C.K., MENANGAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINGANDOOR, THRISSUR. 11. RAFI K.O., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. K.R. OUSEPH, KANNANAIKKAL HOUSE, ROSE VILLA, SILK NAGAR, PERINGANDOOR, THRISSUR. 12. KERALA VISION LTD., I/IJ, KRISHNA BUILDING, VILVATTOM PANCHAYAT, VIYYUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ARBA.NO.1/2008 ORDER ON IA. NO.174/2008 IN Arba no.1/2008 DISMISSED 22.01.2008 SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD/- K.HEMA, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss J.B. Koshy & K.Hema, JJ. -------------------------------------- Arb.Appeal No. 1 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Respondents in this case approached the District Court for an injunction against disconnecting signals for transmission of T.V. programmes in the channel. They were cable operators. First respondent in the Arb. O.P. is transmitting T.V. signals to various cable operators through second respondent who is one of the distributor of signals. Respondents (appellants herein) contended that revised transmission charges are not paid by the petitioners. Further, it was contended that first and second respondents are entirely different entities and there is no arbitration clause or agreement for arbitration with second respondent. The District Court found that both petitioners and second respondent are shareholders of first respondent company and second respondent is the partner of first respondent company though second respondent as such is a firm. In the Memorandum of Association of first respondent company itself there is an arbitration clause. Clause 15 of the Memorandum of Association reads as follows: Arb.Appeal No. 1/2008 2 "To refer or agree to refer any claims, demands, disputes or any other question by or against the company or in which the company is interest or concerned whether between the company and the members or his or their representatives or between the company and third party to arbitration in India or at any place outside India and to observe and perform and to deal, acts, deeds, matters and things to carry out or enforce the awards." It is clearly stated that disputes between not only with the company, but, with the members also can be referred for arbitration. Since section 9 is applicable even before arbitration starts and considering the balance of convenience, the District Judge granted prayers under section 9 (ii) (d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. We see no ground to interfere with the above order. 2. It is submitted by the appellant that they should be allowed to raise the question of jurisdiction before the arbitrator and also arbitration proceedings is not started and if it is continuing indefinitely, that will cause irreparable hardship to them. In the above circumstances, petitioners (respondents in this appeal) shall take immediate steps for commencement of arbitration and it should be done expeditiously so that arbitration proceedings can be completed within six months. The injunction will stand only for six Arb.Appeal No. 1/2008 3 months or till the end of arbitration proceedings on condition that writ petitioner should continue to pay transmission charges at the old rate. The arbitrator shall dispose of the matter untrammeled by any of the observations in this judgment or in the impugned order. If the arbitration proceedings are delayed at the instance of the appellant, the injunction order will automatically be extended for the period of delay caused by the appellant. The arbitration appeal is disposed of. J.B.Koshy Judge K. Hema Judge vaa Arb.Appeal No. 1/2008 4 J.B. KOSHY AND K.HEMA ,JJ. ------------------------------------- Arb.Appeal No. 1 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:22nd January, 2008