In the case of M. Rajaratnam & M. Ragunathan vs M/S. Raj Video Vision & Others, the Madras High Court adjudicated an Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioners sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between themselves and the second and third respondents, both of whom were partners in the first respondent firm, Raj Video Vision.
The Copyright Dispute
The dispute arose after the petitioners alleged that the respondents had been exploiting copyright materials belonging to the partnership firm for their personal benefit.
The petitioners claimed that the arbitration agreement in the original partnership deed dated 23.11.1995 should govern the resolution of disputes, despite a reconstitution of the partnership in 2018, where a new partner was introduced and an earlier partner retired.
The second respondent, however, contended that the reconstituted deed of 2018 did not include an arbitration clause, and therefore, arbitration could not be invoked. Additionally, the respondents argued that the nature of the dispute involved copyright infringement, which was not arbitrable.
Decision on Arbitrability
The court, after considering the arguments, noted that the 2018 reconstitution agreement stipulated that the new partner was to be bound by the same terms and conditions as the original partnership deed of 1995, including the arbitration clause. The court rejected the respondents’ argument about the non-arbitrability of copyright disputes, holding that the dispute in this case was not merely about copyright infringement, but about the misuse of partnership assets, which could be arbitrated.
In light of these findings, the court-appointed Mr. V. Bharathidasan, a former judge of the Madras High Court, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and ordered the proceedings to move forward under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court also closed the accompanying application, granting liberty to the parties to invoke Section 17 of the Act if needed.
Citation: M. Rajaratnam v. M/S. Raj Video Vision, Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No. 468 of 2023 (H.C. Madras Oct. 3, 2024). Available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/132568709/, Visited on: 06/10/2024.
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
