ITV wins with the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court that it does not have to pay 2.8 billion to the PSP.
ITV wins with the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court that it does not have to pay 2.8 billion to the PSP.
On January 25, reporters reported that the Central Administrative Court arranged to read the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court. In black case number 620/2016, red case number 1948/2020 between the Office of the Permanent Secretary, the Office of the Prime Minister (the petitioner) and ITV Public Company Limited (the respondent), the dispute case relates to a matter which is determined by law to be within the administrative jurisdiction.
(In this case, the petitioner complains that the Arbitral Tribunal issued a decision on the black dispute number 46/2007 and the red dispute number 1/2016, dated January 14, 2016, in the case of a ruling that the petitioner and the opponent both have no debt. that must be paid to each other according to the agreement to join and operate a UHF radio and television station dated July 3, 1995, which the petitioner sees It is a final decision that is not complies with the terms of the contract and goes beyond the scope. of the arbitration agreement As a result, the plaintiff suffered damage. so bring the case to court)
In this case, the Administrative Court of First Instance rejected the appeal. Because the court has considered and found that The petitioner and the opponent have a dispute or a dispute arises about rights or duties between the petitioner and the opponent. In connection with the contract to participate in and operate the UHF radio and television station, it is an action to resolve disputes or disputes arising between the petitioner and the opponent through arbitration. According to the petitioner and The dissenters had agreed to an arbitration agreement stated in the contract. Even if there is a dispute or dispute regarding such matters The petitioner filed a legal case against the respondent with the Central Administrative Court. It is black case number 640/2007.
The Administrative Court ordered the case to be removed from the register. for the petitioner and the objector to take action by arbitration and the objector submitted a statement of dispute asking the arbitral tribunal to decide whether it was The petitioner is not entitled to demand minimum damages including interest and fines, and does not have right to insist that the value of the property delivered by the objector to the petitioner is less than that stated. which is a different party The same party does not present a statement of dispute or claim on the same matter.
and submitting the two disputes mentioned above It means submitting the dispute to a different arbitration institution. Therefore, it does not fall in the nature of presenting a double dispute. and the arbitration agreement in accordance with which the petitioner and the objector agreed to use the method of arbitration to resolve the dispute. The award of the arbitral tribunal is therefore within the scope of the arbitration agreement and does not exceed the scope of the agreement to submit the dispute to the arbitral tribunal.
Regarding the case where the opponent presented a dispute proposal, black number 46/2007, which is a dispute on the same issue as black dispute number 1/2007, and a final decision has not yet been made by the arbitration tribunal, when not It appears that the opponent has taken any steps to allow the arbitral tribunal to proceed with the case and decide the black number of the dispute, number 1/2007. The dispute cannot be settled or settled according to the dispute proposal mentioned above through arbitration.
The opponent later submitted a statement of dispute to the Arbitration Institute, No. Du 46/2007, stating that
The plaintiff breached the agreement to attend the event. By terminating the contract and asking the plaintiff to pay damages in case of breach of contract to participate in the event.
The opponent then submitted a statement of dispute. and the basis of the dispute which is the source of the dispute regarding rights claimed by the opponent arises from the petitioner’s termination of the contract to attend the event. without rights or without the law It is a presentation of a different matter to the presentation of Dispute No. Black 1/2007. Therefore Submission of Dispute No. Black 46/2007 is not a double submission of Submission of Dispute regarding Submission of Black Dispute No. 1/2007 Judgment of the arbitral tribunal Dispute number black 46/2007, red number 1/2016 is therefore a legal decision. and in a case where there is no cause for the court to set aside the award in accordance with Section 40 of the BE Arbitration Act 2002
In the meantime, ITV Public Company Limited published a letter to shareholders stating that ITV Public Company Limited would like to inform you of the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court in the case of a dispute between the companies. and the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), in the case that ITV submitted a dispute to the Arbitration Institute on 9 May 2007, to consider the termination of the contract to participate in UHF radio and its act. and a television station (the contract made participating) on March 7, 2007 from the Office of the Basic Education Commission Is it legal or not?
By letter to the shareholders Dated on January 25, 2024, addressing the Supreme Administrative Court. A judgment confirmed the judgment of the Central Administrative Court. which ruled to reject the petition of the Office of the Provincial Administrative Organization on the grounds that the award of the arbitration tribunal It is legal. This resulted in the case being concluded, with both the company and the PMO having no further debts to pay each other. 2,890,345,205.48 baht (two thousand eight hundred ninety million three hundred forty five thousand two hundred five baht forty eight satang)
This comes as a result of the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court. As a result, the company has no debts to pay. or duties or liability under the contract for participating in the event or any other obligations to the Office of the Provincial Administrative Organization The Company will call a shareholders’ meeting to consider the direction of ITV.
Follow every situation from Line@matichon here
#ITV #wins #ruling #Supreme #Administrative #Court #pay #billion #PSP
