AAMAR CABLE ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. Vs MSM DISCOVERY PVT. LTD.
- Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/379/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will not decide a review application while connected interlocutory applications, which raise the same issues, remain undisposed. Once the records are examined, the parties must be heard on those connected applications before the review is determined, and the entire group is listed before the full Bench for orders.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The petitioner has filed this application praying for the following reliefs:
“(i) Review the order dated 20.07.2012 and recall the order dated 20.07.2012 whereby the Single Bench of this Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to direct the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs. 4,31,795/- to the Respondent Company within a week.
(ii) Exempt the petitioner company from depositing outstanding / arrear bills of Rs. 4,31,795/- to the Respondent Company till the final disposal of the present matter. (iii) Exempt the petitioner company from depositing the signal charges to the Respondent Company on the basis of 2500 SLR against any arrear or current bill, till the final disposal of the present matter. (iv) Direct the Respondent Company to adjust or refund the entire deposited amount after calculating the signal charges on the basis of 980 SLR or on the basis of the fresh joint survey report, as held till today.”
2. The order of this Tribunal dated 20.07.2012 had been issued in M.A. No. 146 of 2012 filed by the respondent with a request to take action under section 20 of the TRAI Act, 1997 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein it was requested that petitioner has failed to implement this Tribunal’s orders dated 2.2.2012 and 22.03.2012. The respondent further requested that the petitioner should pay immediately payment of Rs. 7,64,840/- to the respondent being accumulated outstanding subscription amount due and payable to the respondent in terms of this Tribunal’s orders.
After examining all the aspects it was directed that the amount of Rs. 4,31,795/- which is due to be paid by the Petitioner as per the statement of accounts of the petitioner should be paid to the respondent within a period of one week in terms of the earlier orders of this Tribunal.
3. By this application being M.A. No. 481 of 2012, the petitioner again requested for the review of order dated 20.07.2012 on the ground that the subscriber base of the petitioner has been only 980 and it is difficult for it to pay @ 2500 as ordered by this Tribunal.
4. The order dated 20.07.2012 was passed on respondent’s application for making payments in terms of this Tribunal order dated 2.2.2012 and 22.03.2012.
5. I have noticed that the petitioner has filed two miscellaneous applications being M. A. No. 281 and 282 of 2012 on 3.7.2012. In M.A. No. 281 of 2012, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
“(i) Direct the respondent company to supply/provide the signals of all the channels of the respondent company to the petitioner company either on the basis of fresh joint survey report, as held till today or declare that the current SLR of the petitioner company is 980; (ii) Exempt the petitioner company from depositing the signal charges to the Respondent Company on the basis of 2500 SLR against any arrear or current bill. (iii) Direct the Respondent Company to adjust or refund the entire deposited amount after calculating the signal charges on the basis of 980 SLR or on the basis of the fresh joint survey report, as held till today.”
In M.A. No. 282 of 2012, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
“(i) Pass an interim direction /order till the final disposal of the present matter, directing the respondent company to supply/provide the signals of all the channels of the respondent company to the petitioner company either on the basis of fresh joint survey report, as held till today or declare that the current SLR of the petitioner company is 980; (ii) Pass an interim direction /order till the final disposal of the present matter, exempt the petitioner company from depositing the signal charges to the Respondent Company on the basis of 2500 SLR against any arrear or current bill.”
6. I had posted this matter on 12.09.2012 to seek clarification about the status of the MA Nos. 281 and 282 of 2012. Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, informed me that these applications are still pending and are not disposed of. Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner on that date.
7. It is noted that the petitioner has filed M.A. No. 481 of 2012 with a request to review our earlier directions for payment of fees to the respondent on the basis of 2500 subscriber base.
8. The respondent has also filed M.A. No. 424 of 2012, wherein it had requested this Tribunal to take action under section 20 of the TRAI Act, 1997 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, because petitioner has failed to implement this Tribunal’s orders dated 15.09.2011, 2.2.2012 and 22.03.2012 and sought permission to disconnect signals of the respondent’s channels on account of non payment of subscription charges in accordance with this Tribunal’s directions.
9. After examining all the records, it is necessary to hear both the parties on the MA Nos. 281 and 282 of 2012 filed by the petitioner before any decision is taken in M.A. No. 481 of 2012.
10. Therefore, all the MAs filed by the petitioner i.e. M.A. Nos. 281 and 282 of 2012, M.A. No. 481 of 2012, and M.A. No. 424 of 2012 filed by the respondent may be posted before the full Bench on 18.09.2012 under the heading “for orders”.
.……………… (P.K.Rastogi) Member /NC/
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free