The Delhi High Court dismissed Haryanvi singer Sapna Chaudhary's petition that contested the Arbitral Tribunal's ruling favoring the production company MX Media and Entertainment Ltd.

During the judgment delivery, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri highlighted that the raised objections in the petition lacked substance, resulting in the dismissal of the petition and all associated pending applications.

"By way of present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter, the ‘A&C Act'), the petitioner/judgement debtor (Chaudhary) has raised objections to the Award dated 31.10.2022 (hereafter, the ‘impugned award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Sole Arbitrator (hereafter, 'AT')," the court said.

The court elaborated that the contested award stemmed from the Services and Alliance Agreement dated 12.04.2019, subsequently amended on 22.05.2019. In this context, MX Media, identified as the respondent, claimant, and award holder, asserted its role as a company involved in the production, development, marketing, and distribution of media and entertainment content.

It clarified, "The petitioner, a renowned artist in the entertainment industry, had received a sum of Rs 2.5 crore as an advance payment under the Services and Alliance Agreement. Disputes arose when the judgement debtor issued a post-dated cheque for Rs 2 crore towards refund, which was not encashed."

Tensions heightened when MX Media, as the decree holder, alleged a breach of exclusivity after Chaudhary uploaded a music video on YouTube.

Following unsuccessful settlement discussions, Chaudhary terminated the Agreement. As a result, the Arbitral Tribunal partially granted the claim, awarding Rs. 2 crores along with interest. The decree holder pursued three claims: one for the advance payment, another for damages due to breaches, and a third for damages affecting goodwill.

Justice Ohri dismissed Chaudhary's argument that the award violated India's public policy, noting that the Arbitral Tribunal had rejected the second and third claims due to insufficient substantiation and evidence, thereby upholding the decision.

"The contention is bereft of any basis and is thereby rejected." "Reliance by the judgement debtor on the decision is entirely misplaced as in the said decision the parties had reached a written MoU containing recitals thereby cancelling the earlier Agreement," the Judge said.

"The issuance of post-dated cheque on 05.02.2020 also did not novate the earlier Agreement. Concededly, the Draft Settlement Agreement prepared at the instance of decree holder was never signed by the judgement debtor," the judge further said in his order.

The judge ordered that the argument presented, based solely on a vague assertion that the award contradicted India's public policy, lacked substantiation and explanation

The contention is bereft of any basis and is thereby rejected