M/S GADWAL COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK Vs GEMINI TELEVISION
- Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/30/2005
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The petitioner firm, having admitted that the agreement was executed by a person who was then its partner, bore the obligation, if that person and another partner had left the firm, to notify the counterparty and caution it against acting on any later representation by them. In the absence of such notice, the counterparty is entitled to rely on a written communication from the signatory seeking disconnection and to act on it. A bare allegation that such a communication was written with mala fides, unsupported by any other evidence or material on record, does not displace that reliance.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The petitioner has approached this Tribunal complaining that though it had an agreement with the 4th respondent to supply the signals of Gemini and Teja channels, Respondent No. 4 has unilaterally stopped the supply of the said signals without notice.
Notice of this petition was directed to be issued to the respondents. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a common counter-affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the agreement between 4th respondent and the petitioner was executed on behalf of the petitioner by one Shri G. Sridhar and that very person on 3rd January 2005 wrote a letter to the 4th respondent seeking disconnection of the signals by 5th February 2005. It was also stated in this letter it is stated that the petitioner will not be in a position to pay subscription to the 4th respondent from that day. Therefore, the 4th respondent contends that it is consequent to the said letter that the disconnection had taken place and the allegation of the petitioner that the disconnection was unilateral and without notice is unsustainable.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, contended that though it is true that the agreement between the petitioner and the 4th respondent was signed by said Shri G. Sridhar because he was a partner at that point of time, in the month of January 2005 said Shri Sridhar, and another partner Mrs. Jyothi, separated from the partnership and have started a parallel business. It is because of the said reason it is possible that a letter which is referred to by the 4th
Respondent might have been issued with malafide intention. He submitted that the letter was in reality not written on behalf of the petitioner and therefore no reliance should be placed on the said letter. We are unable to accept this contention once it is admitted that the agreement between the petitioner and the 4th Respondent is signed by said Shri G. Sridhar, it was the obligation of the petitioner firm if really the said Shri Sridhar and Mrs. Jyothi had left the partnership to intimate the 4th Respondent and caution the 4th Respondent not to take any action based on any representation to be made by the said persons. No such representation was made and, therefore, in our opinion 4th respondent was well within his rights to rely upon the said letter and act accordingly. We also find from the pleadings that the contention of the learned counsel that said Sridhar has written the letter with malafide intention is not supported by any other evidence or material on record. That being the case, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner and hence the petition is dismissed.
…….……………..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