Case :1 (Arbitration)

M/S Lex Print Petitioner

Vs
M/S Hyderabad law Publishers, Respondents
Adv. Rajendra Kumar

Facts of the case:

Mr. Rajendra Kumar, an Advocate in High court, wrote a book on ‘Constitutional Law’ in the
year 2017. Mr Rajendra Kumar assigned his work to M/S Lex Print, a Delhi based publisher on
1-11-2017. An Assignment Agreement was signed for a period of 10 years which provides that
‘M/S Lex Print’ should pay a consideration of ₹1,00,000 to the author. Once the publisher
completes the sale of 20,000 books, the publisher has to pay a royalty of ₹50/- for every book
published and sold. Royalty amount had to be paid at the end of each financial year i.e. by 31 st
March of every year. The Assignment Agreement provided that all disputes arising out of the
agreement shall be referred to arbitration and the decision shall be final and binding on the
parties and the place or seat of arbitration shall be either Guntur or Delhi. M/S Lex Print has
been publishing and marketing the well acclaimed works of Adv. Mr.Rajendra Kumar.
In the month of July 2020, M/S Lex Print came to know that Mr, Rajendra Kumar got his new
book “An Introduction to the Constitution of India” published in Hyderabad and that the book is
similar to the author’s earlier work as it contained almost all cases covered in the earlier work.
Thus M/S Lex Print filed an application in the District Court, seeking an injunction and relief
against ‘M/s Hyderabad Law Publishers’ from publishing and selling the author’s second book.
Both the publisher felt that both being in the publication, business which might affect their
reputation in the market they along with Advocate Rajendra Kumar requested the Court to direct
the parties to settle the matter amicably through arbitration which was accepted by all.

Issues Of The Cases

(i) Whether Advocate Rajendra Kumar has breached terms of the contract?
(ii) Whether the dispute of Intellectual Property in this case is an arbitrable dispute?
(iii) Whether the subject matter involves, elements of mistake of fact?
 (iv) Whether the M/S Lex Print has incurred a loss of Rs. 10 Lakhs?

Arbitration Award –
(i) With regards to the first issue, Advocate Rajendra Kumar has breached the terms of
the contract by publishing a similar book with M/s Hyderabad law Publishers.
(ii) With regards to the second issue, although the dispute involves, intellectual property
rights, it shall be arbitrable on the following grounds :-
(a) The parties have mutually agreed to settle the dispute through arbitration.
(b) In Booz-Allen & Hamiltion Vs SBI Home Finance. The Supreme Court stated that if
intellectual property dispute arising from commercial arrangement for the use of
intellectual property, such disputes are arbitrable disputes.
(iii) With regards to the third issue, there is no mistake of fact as Advocate Rajendra
Kumar has published his similar book with M/s Hyderabad law Publishers and in
such situations assumptions of mistake of fact cannot arise
(iv) With regard to the fourth issue, yes M/S lex Print has incurred the lossof Rs. 10
Lakhs. The parties have agreed to the arbitrators decision and accordingly Advocate
Rajendra Kumar shall reimburse the losses which M/S lex Print has incurred

Arbitration Report

The arbitration was taken up as there was a direction by the court. The arbitrator called both
the parties and the arbitration proceedings commenced where each party presented the case
with supporting documents. The petitioner M/s Lex Publishers alleged that Advocate
Rajendra Kumar has published a similar book with M/s Hyderabad law Publishers and has
breached the terms of the contract and consequently they have incurred loss of Rs. 10 Lakhs.
Advocate Rajendra Kumar and M/s Hyderabad law Publishers accepted their mistake and
wanted to amicably resolve the matter.
 Case: 2 (Arbitration)

Sunshine Firm Claimant

Vs
Reliance Family Respondent

Facts of the case :

A partnership deed was executed between the respondent Reliance family and Sunshine
firm on 21st May 2001 for running a restaurant by name “The Nest” located in Remo
premises in the prestigious location of Malabar hills of Mumbai.
Sometime later 12th Feb 2003 the claimant and the respondent in furtherance of
partnership deed entered into an MOU under which the claimant decided to be a partner
by receiving a monthly sum of Rs 50,000 and 30% share in the profits of the said firm,
yearly in exchange of the claimant giving finance to renovate the said premises which
now stood dilapidated and to restart the partnership business.
There was an arbitration clause in the partnership deed. Meanwhile the claimant was in
and out of the country and the affair of the restaurant was being managed by the
respondent. The claimant was supposed to be paid approximately Rs 50,000 per month
plus 30% profit share from April 2003 to May 2013 as his share in the restaurant and the
said amount were to be put in his account by the respondent.
Further during exchange of letters the claimant requested the respondent to give accounts
of the restaurant which was done by the respondent along with the income tax return.
However the claimant stated that he received Rs 50,000 per month but the 30% profit
share was not reflected in the accounts.
The claimant through his advocate sent a letter dated 15 June 2013 wherein he sought to
dissolve the said deed with the respondent. Further the claimant alleged that the
respondent had fabricated the accounts and manipulated them as a result they are wrong.
The respondents wrote the letter dated 25 June 2013 denied the allegation made by the
claimant.
Issues of The Cases

1. Whether there was an arbitration clause in the partnership deed between the respondent
and the claimant?
2. Whether the claimant was paid as per the agreement?
3. Whether the respondent have fabricated the accounts and manipulated them as a result
of which they were wrong?

Arbitration Award

After hearing both the parties the arbitrator passed the following award.
1. There was an arbitration clause pertaining to issue no.1 which was incorporated in the
partnership deed.
2. Pertaining to issue no.2 the respondent was able to produce the accounts and it was
convinced that the claimant was paid Rs 50,000 per month. However with respect to the
payment of 30% of the profit share was not clear.
3. The arbitrator came to the conclusion that with reference to issue no.3 to certain extent
the accounts were not clear as far as the profit sharing was concerned and hence directed
the respondent to calculate and pay the profit amount from April 2003 to May 2013 along
with interest at the rate of 6%.

Arbitration Report

The arbitration was taken up as there was an arbitration clause in the partnership deed
between the contesting parties. The arbitrator called both the parties and the arbitration
proceedings commenced where each party presented the case with supporting documents.
While claimant alleged that he did not receive 30% profit share and the same was not
reflected in the accounts. He also alleged that the respondent have fabricated the accounts
and manipulated them as a result they were wrong. The respondent denied the allegations
but could not offer any convincing reply.
 Case 3: (Negotiation)

M/s Sony

Vs

State Co-operative Society

Facts of the case:

The State Co-operative Society invited applications by way of an advertisement

regarding selling of their products of various types. These products were to be sold in the
South Indian States and the last date of receipt of applications was January 12 th 2015.
Among the several applications received by the State Co-operative Society, the
application of M/s Sony was accepted. The State Co-operative Society issued a letter of
intent on 15th March 2016 in favor of the M/s Sony for selling their products.
The appointment of M/s Sony was based on the following conditions to be fulfilled by it:
a) An agreement was to be signed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 50/- and the
agreement is to be enforceable from the date when the contract would be executed
b) The acceptance letter must reach the respondents office before 14th September 2016
c) The candidate was also asked to submit a plan of action by December 16th 2016

M/s Sony acknowledged the letter of intent by stating that the agreement would be signed
by it on 16th May 2016. Further M/s Sony on its own issued an advertisement in the paper
stating that it was appointed as the sole selling agent for the products of the State Co-
operative Society. The State Co-operative Society protested this unilateral decision of
M/s Sony. Further M/s Sony neither attended the office meetings on the said date nor
provided the irrevocable bank guarantee.
 Aggrieved by this callous attitude of M/s Sony, the State Co-operative Society could not
proceed with the business and therefore cancelled the letter of Intent.
M/s Sony filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the letter of intent stating
that in anticipation of the Contract it purchased raw materials for the fulfillment of the
Contract wherein heavy losses would be incurred by it if the Contract is cancelled.
Considering the losses sustained by M/s Sony and the bad name M/s Sony may get, the
court suggested the parties to resolve the matter between them by way of negotiation.

Issues:

1) Whether M/s Sony on its own issued an advertisement in the paper stating that it was
appointed as the sole selling agent for the products of the State Co-operative Society
without complying with the terms and conditions mentioned in the Letter of Intent?
2) Whether the action M/s Sony in filing the Writ Petition against the State Co-operative
Society is justified?
3) Whether the action of the State Co-operative Society would cause loss to M/s Sony?

Steps taken by both the parties to arrive at an Agreement:

1) Both the parties i.e. M/s Sony and the State Co-operative Society decided to settle the
dispute through mutual negotiation.
2) M/s Sony apologized to the State Co-operative Society for using its name and undertook
to give the bank guarantee as required by State Co-operative Society and also to comply
with the terms and conditions stipulated by the State Co-operative Society.
3) The State Co-operative Society agreed to give the Contract to M/s Sony so that it would
not incur any more losses and M/s Sony agreed to withdraw the Writ Petition.

Opinion:
The negotiation undertaken by the parties helped them to understand and settle the matter
amicably.
 Case :4 (Mediation)
Kusum
Vs
Sunita

Facts of the Case:

Alok Nath was the registered owner of a flat admeasuring 5000 sq.ft in ‘Vilas Manzil’ of
Secunderabad. He along with his family, which comprised of his wife Sunita, two sons
Amar and Vijay and a daughter name Sapna resided at the aforementioned premises.
Sapna was married in the year 2000 and left for her marital home. Amar was married to
Neeta on May 15, 2000. After two years Vijay got married to Kusum and a daughter was
born to the couple of their wed lock on March 17, 2008.
Alok Nath, his wife Sunita, their two sons Amar & Vijay with their respective wives
resided as a family in the said flat. Sri Alok Nath and Sunita were occupying one
bedroom, their son Vijay, Kusum and their daughter another bedroom and the third
bedroom was occupied by Amar and Neeta.
In the year 2008, Alok Nath died intestate and was survived by his wife Sunita, two sons
and daughter as the legal heirs. This meant, that each inherited a 1/4 th share in the
property and other assets of the deceased Alok Nath. It was decided between the four that
they shall execute a relinquishment deed in favour of their mother, Sunita and the same
was registered in the official records. Sadly the younger son Vijay died on May 20th
2012.
Unfortunately, differences cropped up between Sunita and her daughter-in-law Kusum,
wife of Vijay. Sunita filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against Kusum,
Amar and his wife Neeta. Amar and his wife Neeta informed the Court that they are
ready to move out of the house though they continued to live there.

Apart from the said developments, a written statement was filed by Kusum, challenging
the relinquishment deed which was executed by Vijay and his siblings in favour of
Sunita. Kusum contended that with the death of her husband, his share devolved upon her
and her minor daughter; and owing to her financial condition she was staying at her
parents home.
Since the family members understood that a status-quo would be harmful for each of the
family member, they decided to go for mediation because litigation would continue for
years. It was felt a satisfying solution where Kusum and her daughter could have proper
accommodation, a decent life with some monthly income was needed.

This is a family dispute and the disputing parties approached the mediators for resolving
the disputes between the parties, as there was an unending ligation between them, which
tarnished the image and name of the family in eyes of the society.

Issues:

1) Whether late Vijay, husband of Smt. Kusum executed a relinquishment deed in favour
of his mother?
2) Whether any ill treatment was meted out to Smt. Kusum after death of her husband
Vijay?

Mediation Report:

(Steps taken by the mediation officer to settle the dispute)

The mediation officer, with the help of the daughter Sapna, tried to settle the matter
between family members of late Sri. Alok Nath. After hearing both Smt. Sunita and her
daughter-in-law Smt. Kusum and holding discussions through mediation on a couple of
occasions, in presence of Sapna d/o late Sri. Alok Nath, all the family members agreed to
end the dispute between them and to accommodate each other.
Smt. Kusum widow of Late Mr. Vijay was convinced to come back and stay in the flat
and the room formerly occupied by her shall be restored to her as before. Smt. Kusum
also agreed to keep aside the past differences and stay with her matrimonial family
happily. It was decided by both Smt. Sunita & Smt. Kusum that any differences arising in
future will sorted out with the help of Sapna.

Opinion:
The decision made by the mediation officer was excellent in that, that all family members
were brought together, agreeing to stay under one roof with harmony. The decision of
the mediation officer is appropriate and applicable under the said aforementioned
circumstances.
 Case: 5 (Conciliation)

Mr. Ravi Kiran

Vs
Ms.Nikitha

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Ravi Kiran aged about 26 years is a native of Karimnagar Town and a B.com
graduate. He is a Clerk in a private school at Guntur drawing a salary of Rs.12,000/-.
P.M. He got married Ms. Nikitha aged about 24 years and native of Karimnagar. She is a
B.com Graduate and a B.Ed final year student.
The marriage was held on 11th November 2014 at Hyderabad, and the couple was
blessed with a male child on 12th November 2015. Mrs. Nikitha after successfully
completing her B.Ed course without any interruption could secure a job in private school
in Karimnagar itself. She started her career with a salary of Rs.15,000/- and presently
draws a salary of Rs 20,000/- and during the holidays, the spouses used to visit each
other.
They continued to carry on their marital ties in the said manner up to May 2019. Then
Mrs. Nikitha requested her husband to resign and come to Karimnagar to live with her,
So that he may secure a similar job and lead a happy life together. But the husband did
not heed to her request. As a result both of them stopped visiting each other, even during
holidays and this strained their relationship further.
On 16 th February, 2020, Mr Ravi Kiran filed a matrimonial petition for the decree of
restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Mrs. Nikitha u/sec 9 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 in Hyderabad Family Court and the Family Court referred the matter to a conciliator
under the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Issue:
The marital relationship strained because of lack of communication between the spouses,
the fact that the spouses were not visiting each other and also there was no cohabitation
which affected their relationship and misunderstanding continued between the couple.

Solution:

The husband is suggested to consider moving to Karimnagar as the job prospects seem
equally good there. The wife’s job prospects were also improving with a regular hike in
her salary. It was further felt that living together as a family would be beneficial for their
child’s wellbeing and also for taking care of one another.
However in the meantime i.e. during which the husband still chalks out a plan of action,
the spouses should visit each other on holidays like before which may help in mending
their faltering relationship.