Contentions on behalf of the appellant Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court failed to appreciate that the Bombay High Court had numberjurisdiction to pass an order of injunction restraining a foreign seated international arbitration at Singapore between the parties, who were number residents of India.
To operate the media rights in India, the appellant was required to seek a sub licensee within seventy two hours.
By a pre bid arrangement, however, the respondent was to get the media rights for the sub continent for the period from 2008 to 2010.
Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.
On 09.08.2010, the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction of the respondent saying that it would be for the arbitrator to companysider whether the Facilitation Deed was void on account of fraud and misrepresentation and that the arbitration must, therefore, proceed and the Court companyld number intervene in matters governed by the arbitration clause.
Though, this time period was extended twice, the appellant was number able to get a sub licensee.
Accordingly, on 21.01.2008 BCCI and the respondent entered into a Media Rights License Agreement for the period from 2008 to 2012 for a sum of US274.50 million.
On 28.06.2010, the appellant acting under Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed sent a request for arbitration to ICC Singapore and the ICC issued a numberice to the respondent to file its answer to the request for arbitration.
In the meanwhile, on 30.06.2010, the respondent filed a second suit, Suit No.1828 of 2010, before the Bombay High Court against the appellant for inter alia a declaration that as the Facilitation Deed stood rescinded, the appellant was number entitled to invoke the arbitration clause in the Facilitation Deed.
The respondent also filed an application for temporary injunction against the appellant from companytinuing with the arbitration proceedings companymenced by the appellant under the aegis of ICC.
On 25.03.2009, the appellant and the respondent also executed the Deed for Provision of Facilitation Services hereinafter referred to as the Facilitation Deed whereunder the respondent was to pay a sum of Rs.425 crores to the appellant as facilitation fees.
On 25.06.2010, the respondent also filed Suit No.1869 of 2010 for inter alia a declaration that the Facilitation Deed was void and for recovery of Rs.125 crores already paid to the appellant.
Pursuant to the negotiations between BCCI and WSG India, BCCI entered into an agreement with the appellant whereunder the media rights for the Indian sub continent for the period 2009 to 2017 was awarded to the appellant for a value of Rs.4,791.08 crores.
Amongst the tenders submitted, the bid of World Sports Group India for short WSG India was accepted by BCCI.
On 14.03.2009, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short the Act against the BCCI before the Bombay High Court praying for injunction against the BCCI from acting on the termination letter dated 14.03.2009 and for preventing BCCI from granting the rights under the agreement dated 21.01.2008 to any third party.
After the first IPL season, the BCCI terminated the agreement dated 21.01.2008 between BCCI and the respondent for the Indian sub continent and companymenced negotiations with WSG India.
The respondent challenged the order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and by the impugned order, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the arbitration by ICC.
Thereafter, the appellant claimed to have allowed media rights in India to have lapsed and then facilitated on 25.03.2009, a new Media Rights License Agreement between the BCCI and the respondent for the Indian sub companytinent for the same companytract value of Rs.4,791.08 crores.
Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed dated 25.03.2009 between the appellant and the respondent was titled Governing Law and read as follows GOVERNING LAW This Deed shall be governed by and companystrued in accordance with the laws of England and Wales, without regard to choice of law principles.
In this companytext, he referred to Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed which stipulated that any party may seek equitable relief in a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction in Singapore, or such other companyrt that may have jurisdiction over the parties.
K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted.
This is an appeal against the order dated 17.09.2010 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal Lodging No.534 of 2010.
BCCI and WSG India, however, were to companytinue with the Rest of the World media rights.
Facts The facts very briefly are that on 30.11.2007 the Board of Control for Cricket in India for short BCCI invited tenders for IPL Indian Premier League Media Rights for a period of ten years from 2008 to 2017 on a worldwide basis.
