ARBITRATON CENTER ON THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019

Case 1402/2019
Arbitrator – T – 2

Premji Productions Pvt. Ltd...........................................................................................CLAIMANT 1

Dr. Akshit Singh.............................................................................................................CLAIMANT 2

versus
View Tender Co. Ltd.....................................................................................................RESPONDENT

Arbitrator T-2 has been appointed by TNNLU, as an authority accepted by the parties in the Med-
Arb Agreement, to appoint the Arbitrator, with respect to section 11(2) of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996, which gives the parties the power to agree upon a procedure to appoint the
Arbitrator(s).

The nature of the said award remains to be interim, and shall be passed with respect to section 17 of
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The same shall be enforseable as an award so passed by a
Court of competent jurisdiction.

The dispute is purely civil in nature, and deals with requirements of compensation as damages,
throughout. The structure of the dispute at hand has requirements which, if they have the capacity to
be solved, could only be met by way of damages.

The procedure so adopted by the Tribunal was an oral proceeding of arguments by each of the
party., whereby the parties themselves briefed the tribunals on the issues at hand and further argued
upon its viability. The same was in strict consonence with section 19 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996.

On the basis of the proceedings,

ISSUES OF FACTS -
1. Why, in first place, was the Parliamentary proceeding called for?
2. Was there an involvement of the Claimant in the happenings of the Special Enquiry
Committee (SEC)?
3. Was the Respondent subject to defamation?
 4. Were the Claimants liable for their acts?

ISSUES OF LAW -

1. Did the Respondent suffer by way of loss in reputation?

2. Were the Claimans directly or indirectly responsible towards the result of the Respondent’s loss, both, monetarily and reputation wise?

3. Was there a loophole within the privacy policies of the Respondent?

CLAIMANTS -

• There was a movie which was produced, based on the country’s ex-prime minister’s life story. In furtherance to that, when the tearers and trailers of the said

movies were released, due to certain controversies, the videos had to be put down.

• Post the said requirement was fulfilled, as a conincidence, this issue of removing was hyped and the privacy policies of VT were questioned upon, in the

parliament.

• The Claimants vide their arguments stated, they were not