9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are as under : 4. The petitioner is a company duly registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the activity of catering to the needs of the consumers of television networks/various channels and can be termed as engaged in cable business. The petitioner receives signals from various Television Channel Broadcasters and in turn distribute the same to the consumers. The status of the petitioner is as of Multiple System Operator. The terms about the subscription fees etc. are settled between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, who is broadcaster, by entering into an agreement dated 30th September, 2010. The period specified between the parties got expired and the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 for continuation of the connectivity of signals. It is the case of respondent No. 2 that the period specified under the agreement was expired on 31.12.2011 and in spite of the communications issued to the petitioner to take necessary steps in respect of the payment of the outstanding amount, the petitioner failed to do the same. The grievance of respondent No. 2 against the petitioner is two folds. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner in respect of revised/present connectivity of channels of Star Den Media Services Private Ltd. and Zee Turner Ltd. for the city of Nagpur. E. Costs of this Petition. F. Any other order deemed fit and proper." 6. The petitioner, by presenting MA No. 207/2012, prayed for interim orders seeking direction to respondent No. 2 that he be restrained from deactivating the signals in respect of their channels distributed by them in the city of Nagpur as per Subscription Agreement dated 30th September, 2010 and direction to recall the notice issued by respondent No. 2 on 18th April, 2012 under Clause 4.1 of the Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2006 and a public notice dated 04th May, 2012 under Clause 4.3 of the Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2006. 7. The learned Tribunal i.e. TD SAT, on considering the prayers made by the petitioner, the counter reply submitted by respondent No. 2 and on hearing of the parties, found that the petitioner is not entitled to any order of injunction as prayed in respect of 101 cable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner vehemently submits that such denial by respondent No. 2 is ousted under clause 3 of Regulations, 2004 so as to prevent a monopoly of a broadcaster. Shri Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner had no concern with the said Bitto Cable Network and the demand of respondent No. 2 for payment of outstanding dues of the said Bitto Cable Network from the petitioner is unsustainable. The learned Senior Counsel, in view of the contentions raised by him, submits that these factors are not considered by the learned Tribunal and as such prayed for indulgence by this Court in the order of the learned Tribunal. 10. Per contra, Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submits that the case of the petitioner is based on wrong premise. He submits that in view of the terms of the agreement between the parties, the specified period permitted the petitioner to supply the cables through respondent No. 2 in its area of operation was expired. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that in spite of the expiry of the period, it was found by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scheme which provides non discriminatory treatment to Multi System Operator. Before considering Clause 3, it will be necessary to have a look on the definitions of term "Broadcaster" and "Multi System Operation" which are defined in the said Regulations "(e) "broadcaster" means any person including an individual, group of persons, public or body corporate, firm or any organization or body who/which is providing broadcasting service and includes his/her authorised distribution agencies. (m) "multi system operator" means any person who receives a broadcasting service from a broadcaster and/or their authorized agencies and retransmits the same to consumers and/or retransmits the same to one or more cable operators and includes his/her authorised distribution agencies." 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is Multi System Operator; whereas respondent No. 2 is Broadcaster as per these definitions. Shri Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that in view of clause 3, the ground taken by respondent No. 2 for disconnecting the signals to the petitioner that the petitioner is operating service beyond its area of operation is unsustainable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rategical alliance with the petitioner. These are certainly the disputed facts and as such this Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot go into these disputed facts. 19. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar that the petitioner is entitled to operate its business of distributing channels to unlimited area also cannot be accepted for the reasons, namely, the petitioner itself has admitted in the petition that the petitioner has entered into subscription agreements with Zee Turner Limited on 30.09.2010 and also with Star Den Media Systems Pvt. Ltd. on 27.04.2011 and the area of operation of these agreements was the main city of Nagpur. The agreement between the parties is also placed on record. In the said agreement, a reference is made to area specified. In the said clause of the agreement under the caption of area specified, there is reference to various localities and it is further referred that limited to areas in SLR attached in AnnexureI. AnnexureI to the said agreement refers to the list of the cable operators and their areas as well connections attached to these cable operators. It is the case of respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was expec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned Senior Counsel further submits that in view of the controversy which is pending decision before the learned Tribunal and in view of the fact that the prayer for interim order is rejected by the learned Tribunal, no indulgence be shown by this Court. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel submits that in similar set of facts, the Delhi High Court in the case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. v.v. Asianet Satellite Communications (cited supra) held that when it is shown that the order of Tribunal is not suffering from perversity and unreasonableness, interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction by High Court in the interim order is not called for. This view is reiterated in another unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Star India P. Ltd. .v. Life Style Communication P. Ltd. (cited supra). It will be necessary to refer to the relevant observation of the Delhi High Court in the case of Star India P. Ltd. .v. Life Style Communication P. Ltd. (cited supra) which reads thus : "The Tribunal is invested with the power to adjudicate disputes, as an exclusive quasi judicial body. It has gathered some institutional expertise; indeed its membership is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
