9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to TDSAT order declining ad-interim injunction in a petition related to broadcasting agreement termination.
Summary: Issue 1: Agreement Termination and Ad-interim Injunction The petitioner, a broadcaster, sought a declaration that the broadcasting agreement with NDTV was valid and binding, and requested to restrain Star Den Media Services from interfering with its rights. TDSAT declined the ad-interim relief, citing Specific Relief Act provisions and lack of prima facie case. The court found that compensation could be an adequate relief and balance of convenience was not in favor of the petitioner. Issue 2: Interpretation of Specific Relief Act Petitioner argued that the court misread Section 14(1)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing on the term 'adequate relief'. It was contended that the discretion to grant an ad-interim mandatory injunction should not be fettered by Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. Distinctions were drawn from previous judgments to support the claim for specific performance. Issue 3: Illegal Termination and Relief The termination of the agreement was deemed illegal by the petitioner due to the absence of essential conditions. However, the court held that even in cases of illegal termination, relief in the form of damages, not continuation of the contract, is granted. The court emphasized that damages or losses suffered by the petitioner could be quantified and compensation could be an adequate relief. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the TDSAT's decision, as no grounds were made out for interference. The court highlighted the inability to direct the revival of an agreement when one party unequivocally wishes to terminate it. The judgment emphasized the quantifiability of damages and the limitations imposed by the Specific Relief Act on granting injunctions in such cases.
|
