01
indiantelevision.com Team
MUMBAI: Leading Indian newscaster New Delhi Television Ltd (NDTV)?s battle with TV ratings agency TAM Media?s parent Nielsen in the US has got a strange twist. Sabharwal & Finkel, one of the two law firms which were fighting NDTV?s case in the US courts against TAM, has filed a legal complaint against it.
According to the complaint, S&F and NDTV entered into a retainer agreement on 25 May 2012, pursuant to which S&F performed legal services for NDTV until 22 April 2013. However, it says it has not been paid for the same and has asked the court to intervene to ensure that its demand of a ?reasonable value? of its services inquantum meriut amounting to not less than $1.7 million is paid to it.
indiantelevision.com has a copy of the complaint, which was filed by S & F with the United Sates District Court-Southern District Court of New York on 6 June 2013, wherein the plaintiff has sought quantum meruit against NDTV.
The complaint tells us that NDTV officially terminated its retainer agreement with S&F on or about 22 April 2013 and confirmed it on or about May 2013, following this, the law firm was compelled to resort the legal course.
NDTV had transferred control of its representation to another law firm - Pepper Hamilton (PH) on or about 22 November 2012. This brings us to an interesting revelation in the complaint. S&F claims that ?the extent? of such transfer of control to another law firm was not known to it.
S&F further alleges that it objected to the transfer of control at various times from November 2012 to March 2013 and also addressed an explicit request to be relieved of its representation of NDTV in the case on 8 December 2013, but the defendant did not pay any heed to its objection.
The law firm alleges, in its complaint, that it was told several times by NDTV and PH that it was still in control during November 2012 and 4 March 2013 while unkown to the law firm, NDTV had transferred full control of the case to PH during the same period.
According to S&F, the transfer of control to PH was contrary to the retainer agreement and to the very essence of contingent fee agreements. It further adds that the contract does not deal with contingent compensation on the hypothesis of success or failure by the other member of the bar.
All in all, the aggrieved law firm has strongly demanded fair compensation through a trial by jury.
Responding to this article NDTV has issued the following statement to indiantelevision.com:
"NDTV has not yet been served with the complaint and will review it in due course with its lawyers after being served.
NDTV strongly believes that this complaint is frivolous and without merits. NDTV intends to fight it vigorously and will pursue all causes of action and remedies it may have against these plaintiffs."
