- 1 - 905.arbp.1008.11 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 1008 OF 2011 Anees Bazmee ..Petitioner -Versus- Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents .......... Dr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior counsel a/w. Dr.Birendra Saraf, Mr.Ashish Kamat i/b M/s.Ranjit & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr.Arif Bookwala, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr.B.Sutar i/b Ashok Singh for Defendant No.1. Mr.Sharan Jagtiani a/w. Mr.Vatsal Shah, Mr.Lavin Hirani i/b Naik Naik & Co. for Defendant No.3. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. 1 By consent, the petition is admitted and heard finally. 2 This is a petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3 The petitioner and respondent nos.1 & 2 have agreed to refer all the disputes and differences between them to the sole arbitration of Mr.Ketan Parikh, an advocate of this Court. - 2 - 905.arbp.1008.11 3 At the ad-interim stage, it is difficult to express any view on the rival contentions regarding either the total production costs or the over flow, if any. There is also a dispute as to whether the pre-production costs ought to be first met from out of the amounts received. The modified agreement dated 30th March 2010, contemplates a decision regarding certain aspects such as whether there was a delay or deficit in the budget of the sole arbitration of one Rajat Rawail. Although, he is described as the sole arbitrator, the parties agreed that they had not contemplated a reference of all the disputes to his arbitration. He was only to give a decision on the specific items mentioned in the letter dated 30th March 2010 which is annexed as Exhibit ‘B’ to the petition. He has apparently given a tentative decision. Neither the petitioner nor respondent no.1 has accepted the same. The petitioner now says that he is accepting the said decision. However, respondent nos.1 and 2 do not accept the same. The effect to be given to the same will be decided by the sole arbitrator Mr.Parikh. 3 In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of by the following order : (i) The undertaking on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 that 30% of overflow, if any, will be paid by them to the petitioner, is accepted. (ii) Respondent nos.1 and 2 shall furnish accounts up to date, on affidavit to the petitioner’s advocate within two - 3 - 905.arbp.1008.11 weeks from today. All further accounts in respect of the film shall be furnished fortnightly by respondent nos.1 and 2 to the petitioner’s advocate. Respondent nos.1 and 2 shall also furnish along with accounts, all documents in relation to the exploitation of the film. (iii) The petitioner is at liberty to make an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after the receipt of the same including for the reliefs claimed in the petition for securing the claim. 4 Respondent no.3 was impleaded only as a garnishee. Mr.Jagtiani, states that no amounts are due and payable by respondent no.3 to respondent nos.1 and 2 as there is no agreement between them. He states that no amounts shall be paid by respondent no.3 to respondent nos.1 and 2 in relation to the subject matter of this petition. In view of this statement, no orders are necessary against respondent no.3. The petition is accordingly disposed of. -