DARSHAN INFOCOM SERVICES PVT. LTD. Vs SET DISCOVERY PVT. LTD.

Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal23 March 2006HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE, CHAIRPERSON, MR. VINOD VAISH, MEMBER, LT.GEN.D.P.SEHGAL(RETD.),MEMBER

Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/35/2005

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A petition seeking restoration of broadcast signals becomes infructuous where the underlying subscription agreement has come to an end and the petitioner itself, having sought vacation of the interim order directing reconnection, is no longer receiving the signals, so that no live relief remains to be granted.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

6/7/2018 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNALTELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHIDATED 23RD MARCH, 2006PETITION No. 35(C) OF 2005(M.A.No. 100 of 2005)Darshan Infocom Services Pvt. Ltd. …PetitionerVsSet Discovery Pvt. Limited & Anr. …RespondentsBEFORE:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE,CHAIRPERSONMR. VINOD VAISH, MEMBERLT.GEN.D.P.SEHGAL(RETD.),MEMBERFor Petitioner : Mr.Prabhat Kumar,AdvocateFor Respondent No.1-Set Discovery : Mr.Aditya Narain,AdvocateFor Respondent No.2-Network : NoneEntertainment TeamORDER

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to restore signals which were disconnected for unauthorized supply of signals. By an interim order dated 25th April,2005, we had directed the respondents to reconnect the signals on the condition that the petitioner pays subscription regularly. It was thereafter pointed out to the Tribunal that the petitioner has defaulted in the payment of subscription. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that because of certain financial difficulties that the petitioner could not pay the subscription, hence he sought for the vacation of the interim order. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain amounts have been paid to the respondent broadcaster which is vehemently denied by the learned counsel for the respondent broadcaster. Be that as it may, since the agreement has come to an end and the petitioner on its own has sought for vacation of the interim order consequent to which the petitioner is not receiving the signals of the respondent broadcaster, we think this petition has become infructuous. However, this will not come in the way of the petitioner negotiating with the respondent for fresh signals and signing a new agreement. This also does not preclude the right of the respondents to take recourse to law as is available for recovery of the amount due from the petitioner.

2. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.

…………………J (N.Santosh Hegde) Chairperson

…………….. (Vinod Vaish) Member

……………. (D.P.Sehgal) Member

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