DEN NETWORK LTD Vs MULTI VISION CABLE NETWORK

Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal16 August 2011HON BLE MR.JUSTICE S.B.SINHA, CHAIRPERSON

Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/27/2010

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, objections raised by a judgment debtor in execution are confined to questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, and no other contention may be raised or entertained. A decree-holder who paid ad valorem court fee in accordance with the Tribunal's rules, and whose petitions were allowed with costs, is entitled to execute the decree as it stands. The judgment debtor cannot refuse to pay part of the decree on the ground that, in a different matter, ad valorem court fee was held not leviable. Costs actually incurred by the decree-holder, including court fee, form part of the decree and do not pertain to its execution, discharge or satisfaction. Any claim for refund of that court fee is for the decree-holder to pursue on its own merits. Where the Tribunal's orders have been carried in appeal and the appeals dismissed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal's orders merge with the Supreme Court's order. A decree of the Tribunal is executable under Section 19(i) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, so an objection by the judgment debtor that rests on a contrary view of the court fee issue has no legal force.

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

Judgment

As delivered

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHIDated 16th August, 2011M.A. No.115 of 2011 in E.A. No.3 of 2011INPetition No.27 (C) of 2010Den Networks Limited PetitionerVs.Multi Vision Network Respondent

A N D

M.A. No.116 of 2011 in E.A. No.4 of 2011INPetition No.200(C) of 2008Den Network Limited PetitionerVs.Multi Vision Network RespondentBEFORE:HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.B.SINHA, CHAIRPERSONFor Petitioner (decree holder) : Mr. Vibhav Srivastava, AdvocateMs. Prabhjot Kaur, AdvocateFor Respondent : Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate(Judgment Debtor) Mr. Sharath Sampath, AdvocateJUDGMENTS.B. SINHA

Mr. Navin Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Judgment Debtor would contend that having regard to the decision of this Tribunal in Tata Teleservices Ltd. (Maharashtra) Vs. Union of India (Petition No.12 of 2002), this Tribunal having held that no ad-valorem Court Fee can be levied by this Tribunal on its administrative side, the Judgment Debtor could not have been saddled with any costs/including the amount of Court Fee.

2. It is true that in the aforementioned judgment, this Tribunal has held that no ad-valorem Court Fee could be levied by this Tribunal by an administrative order.

It is, however, not in dispute that the decree-holder had paid ad-valorem Court Fee in terms of the rules framed by this Tribunal. The two petitions filed by the decree holder herein have been allowed with costs. The decrees have been prepared accordingly.

3. The decree holder, in our opinion, is entitled to execute the decree as it stands. The Judgment Debtor, in our considered opinion, cannot say that it would not pay a part of the decree only because in another matter ad-valorem Court Fee has been found to be not payable.

4. The Judgment Debtor has filed an objection in terms of the Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In terms of the aforementioned provision, the question which could be raised and determined would relate only to execution, discharging and satisfaction of decree. No other contention can be raised or permitted to be raised.

It is not in dispute that the decree drawn up by this Tribunal includes the costs incurred by the decree holder including the Court Fee paid by it. It is for the decree holder, on the basis of the judgment, to pray for refund of the Court Fee which will have to be considered on its own merit.

A Judgment Debtor on that premise cannot refuse to pay the costs actually incurred by the decree holder, as the same does not pertain to execution discharge or satisfaction of the decree.

5. The Judgment Debtor preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The said appeals have been dismissed.

The orders passed by this Tribunal, therefore, merged with the order of the Supreme Court of India. The decree being an executable one in terms of Sub-section (i) of Section 19 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, I am of the opinion that the aforementioned objection on the part of the Judgment Debtor has no legal force.

………....... J (S.B. Sinha) Chairperson rkc

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