PROBLEM 01

Prabhas and Rana were brothers. They were partners in a partnership firm that

was involved in running a restaurant. The business was profitable and the profits were

shared equally among the brothers. Prabhas was entrusted with the administration

whereas Rana took care of public relations and marketing. Rana alleges Prabhas for

fraudulently siphoning an amount of Rs.500000/-. He suggests that Prabhas failed to

make deposits in the common bank account. Additionally, in a separate raid conducted

by the CBI on the premises of one of their relatives, an amount of Rs. 100000 was

found and it is suspected to have been given by Prabhas.

On these grounds, a suit for permanent injunction was put in place meaning to

interfere with Prabhas’s right to participate in the administration of the restaurant.

Prabhas moved an application under Section 8 of the Act, raising an objection to the

maintainability of the suit on the basis that the partnership deed contains an arbitration

clause to settle disputes relating to the business that arises between the parties. Rana

raises an objection on the grounds of arbitrability of the matter.

PROBLEM 02
 Zeus owns copyright of several feature films. They produce, distribute and

exhibit feature films through various media. Cinemax offered a sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores

as a non-refundable minimum guarantee for the grant of content marketing and

distribution rights. They entered into a term sheet with Cinemax for granting content

marketing and distribution rights in respect of films. The term sheet contemplated the

execution of a Copyright license agreement. However, no such agreement was

executed between the parties and yet Cinemax proceeded with distribution.

Zeus filed a suit for infringement of copyright of its content by Cinemax,

claiming that Cinemax was not entitled to exploit and deal with such content before

execution of the Copyright license agreement. To counter the suit, Cinemax filed an

application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act stating that all disputes (including

under the present suit) between Zeus and Cinemax be referred to arbitration in view of

the arbitration clause in the term sheet.

PROBLEM 03
 The Trichy Development Board entered into a contract with Southern builders

requiring them to build a housing complex in Navalurkuttapettu. The housing complex

has 100 middle income and 50 low income houses. The contract required completion

of these houses within a year. The total cost for the said construction was noted as Rs.

99,00,000/-. However, even after 34 months, only 98 middle income houses and 39

low income houses were completed.

The delay in construction also cost them unanticipated additional expense of

Rs.10,00,000/- until date. The builders provided detailed break-up of actual

expenditure and demanded refund for the same. The builders hold the board

responsible for causing the delay due to untimely release of funds. The builders had to

maintain tools & plants, scaffolding etc, during the prolongation of the contract

resulting in expenditure for the same.

Whereas the Development Board demands compensation for delay from the

builders. One of the facts noted negligence on part of the builders regarding

electrification work and the same caused hire charges. The contract between the board

and builders contain an arbitration clause requiring them to settle any dispute

pertaining to the construction of housing complex by way of arbitration.