J. S. J. CABLE NETWORK Vs HATHWAY CABLE AND DATACOM PRIVATE LIMITED
- Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/40/2004
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A party seeking signals of the same channels cannot demand them simultaneously from several distributors; it must elect one from whom to seek them. Where a distributor is directed to supply signals under a subscriber agreement, the obligation arises only once the agreement is executed and the conditions precedent are met, namely the grant of final authorization and the laying of the cable to the nearest point from which signals can be obtained. Where the relief sought is granted against one respondent, other respondents against whom no relief is available may be discharged from the array of parties. A conditional view expressed on the validity of a respondent's business conditions is not a decision on that question, and the Tribunal will not adjudicate the validity of conditions where no prayer concerning them has been made.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
6/7/2018 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI TH DATED 18 JANUARY, 2006 PETITION No.40(C) OF 2004 (M.A.No.102 of 2005) M/S J.S.J.Cable Network …Petitioner Vs In Cable Indusind Media Communication Limited & Ors. …Respondents BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE, CHAIRPERSON MR. VINOD VAISH, MEMBER LT.GEN.D.P.SEHGAL(RETD.),MEMBER
For Petitioner : Mr.Priyabrat Tripathy,Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Vibhav Srivastava for Mr.Sunil Agarwal,Advocates For Respondent No.6 – Atria Convergence & : Mr.Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, Technology Private Limited Mr.Vikas R., Advocates ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for signals from respondent nos.1-6 of same channels. We have directed the petitioner on the last date of hearing that he must choose any one of the respondents as a MSO to supply signals to him and he cannot simultaneously ask for signals of the same channels from all the respondents. Today on instructions from his client, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner would seek signals from the second respondent.
2. Earlier, in this petition we had directed that since the petitioner will have to lay its own cable for seeking signals from the second respondent it is necessary that he obtains permission from the BESCOM authorities which learned counsel for the petitioner now submits he has obtained, but this is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents saying that that is not the final authorization.
3. To avoid further delay, we direct the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to negotiate the terms of Subscriber Agreement and sign the same within two weeks. However, this Agreement will come into force only after the petitioner obtains the final authorization from BESCOM and lays the cable to the nearest point from where it could obtain signals from the 2nd Respondent. It is only on such agreement being signed and steps being taken, as referred to hereinabove, the 2nd Respondent is obligated to give signals on terms agreed to in the Agreement referred to hereinabove.
4. Since we have granted the relief prayed for by the Petitioner by directing the 2nd Respondent to give signals on terms and conditions mentioned hereinabove, we do not think the Petitioner could seek relief from others. Hence, we discharge the said Respondents from the array of parties.
Before concluding, however, we think it necessary to note that the 6th Respondent has filed a reply wherein it has taken a stand in regard to certain business conditions adopted by it. We prima facie think that these conditions are contrary to the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation 2004 framed by the TRAI. However, since no prayer is sought for in regard to validity of these conditions, we will not go into this question.
5. Petition is disposed of. No costs.
…………………..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