Bombay High Court upholds Rs 30.45 lakh arbitral award in ‘Jai Hanuman’ telecast dispute

Court: Arbitrator correctly read contract as whole

• Rejecting the challenge, the high court held that the arbitrator had carefully examined the contract and its payment clauses.
• The court observed that the agreement fixed the total consideration for the entire 350-episode series, while instalment payments were introduced merely as a facility granted at the broadcaster’s request.
• The high court also held that interpreting individual clauses, particularly those concerning termination, in isolation would distort the contract’s overall structure.

• The arbitrator’s interpretation, the court said, was therefore “a possible and plausible view” of the agreement.
• The court emphasised that arbitral awards cannot be disturbed merely because another interpretation of the contract is possible.

Limited scope of interference under Section 34

• The court reiterated that proceedings under Section 34 do not permit a reappreciation of evidence or a fresh interpretation of contractual terms.
• Unless an arbitral award is shown to suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or violation of public policy, courts must respect the tribunal’s findings.
• Since the arbitrator’s conclusions were based on the agreement and the material on record, the high court held that no ground existed to interfere with the award.

Petition dismissed

• The court ultimately dismissed Polimer Media’s petition, affirming the arbitral award directing the broadcaster to pay the outstanding license fee.
• The ruling once again underscores the judiciary’s consistent approach towards arbitration: contractual disputes resolved through arbitral tribunals will rarely be reopened by courts unless the award is fundamentally flawed.

Dispute over telecast of ‘Jai Hanuman’

• The dispute arose from a license agreement dated December 5, 2019, under which Ultra Media granted Polimer Media the right to broadcast 350 episodes of the mythological television serial Jai Hanuman on its channel Polimer TV.
• Under the agreement, the license fee was fixed at Rs 10,500 per episode.
• The total contract value for all episodes was Rs 36.75 lakh.

• The episodes were to be telecast until November 30, 2021, or until the completion of 350 episodes, whichever occurred earlier.
• The arrangement initially progressed without dispute.
• Sixty episodes were delivered, telecast and paid for.
• However, the relationship deteriorated when Polimer stopped collecting and airing further episodes, leading Ultra Media to claim Rs 30.45 lakh as the balance license fee.
• When payment demands failed, the dispute was referred to arbitration.

Arbitrator finds broadcaster liable

• The sole arbitrator ruled in favour of Ultra Media, holding that Polimer remained contractually obligated to pay the license fee for the entire series.
• The tribunal found that Ultra Media had expressed readiness and willingness to supply the remaining episodes, and that the instalment-based payment structure had been introduced only as a concession sought by Polimer.
• Accordingly, the arbitrator allowed the claim and directed Polimer to pay Rs 30.45 lakh along with costs.

Polimer’s challenge before high court

• Polimer Media challenged the award before the high court, arguing that the arbitrator had misinterpreted the contract.
• The broadcaster contended that license fees were payable only for episodes actually delivered and telecast.
• The show had suffered poor reviews and declining TRP ratings, forcing the channel to discontinue telecasts.

• Since the remaining episodes were never aired, the claim effectively amounted to damages without proof of loss.
• The agreement provided for automatic termination upon default, allowing the licensor to exploit the serial elsewhere.
• On this basis, Polimer urged the court to set aside the arbitral award as contrary to public policy and patently illegal.