MEDIA PRO ENTERPRISE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs PRT SATELLITE NETWORK SYSTEM
- Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/764/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A claimant seeking recovery of subscription dues under a distribution agreement must show that the amounts claimed fall within the period of a subsisting contractual obligation between the parties. Where the claimant's own pleadings place its takeover of the channels after the agreements with the respondents expired, and it offers no explanation of how invoices for the later months could be raised under those expired agreements, the claim fails prima facie, and the claimant is not entitled to a decree even where the respondents do not appear. Where the petitions are, on their face, frivolous, because the claims for dues are unsupported by the claimant's own account and statements of account, the Tribunal may dismiss them with costs for wasting its time.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R
Petitions in the above batch are for recovery of subscription amounts. The petitioner, M/s. Media Pro Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., is a content aggregator and acts as an agent/distributor of various broadcasters. The respondents are Multi
Systems Operators and subscribe to the signals/channels of the petitioner and in turn distribute the same to the subscribers.
2. The case of the petitioner is that with effect from 01.7.2011, the petitioner has taken over distribution of the channels of M/s. Zee Turner Ltd. who have also authorized the petitioner to collect the outstanding dues on their behalf from the respondents. The respondents had entered into agreements with the M/s Zee Turner as per the details given in Table 1. The petitioner has from time to time raised invoices on the respondents for payment of monthly subscription fee as well as the payment towards old outstanding dues. The respondents even after receiving the invoices, have failed to clear the outstanding dues.
3. No one appeared for the respondents despite service of notice nor was any reply filed on behalf of the respondents to controvert the statements and allegations made in the petition. The petition, therefore, proceeded ex-parte.
4. The petitioner has adduced evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Amiya Ranjan Pati working as Deputy General Manager with the petitioner and has also produced the witness before the Tribunal for examination. The witness identified the subscription agreements between the parties as Exhibits PW1/1, copies of invoices as Exhibits PW1/2(Colly) and ledger accounts showing the outstanding payable by the respondents as Exhibits PW1/3(Colly).
Table 1: The details of agreements and outstanding as per petitioner.
S Petition No. Title Date of Agreement Validity Period Total Outstanding. Dues N o. 1 P 764(C)/2012 Media Pro Enterprise 19.06.2010 (with 01.04.2010 to Rs.1,50,650.39. India Pvt. Ltd. Zee Turner @ Pg. 31.03.2011 (Zee vs. 8-19, Exhibit PW Turner) PRT Satellite Network 1/1) System (Cuddalore) 2 P 771(C)/2012 Media Pro Enterprise 03.05.2010 (with 01.04.2010 to Rs.77,417.36/- . India Pvt. Ltd. Zee Turner @ Pg. 31.03.2011 (Zee vs. 8-18, Exhibit PW Turner) World Network 1/1) (Villupuram) 3 P 772(C)/2012 Media Pro Enterprise 04.05.2010 (with 01.04.2010 to Rs.54,707.46/- . India Pvt. Ltd. Zee Turner @ Pg. 31.03.2011 (Zee vs. 8-19, Exhibit PW Turner) Chinnalapatti Network 1/1) (Dindigul)
5. As per the petitioner’s own case, it has taken over the distribution of channels of Zee Turner w.e.f. 1.7.2011. However, the agreements executed by the respondents with Zee Turner had already come to end on 31.3.2011 in all the petitions in this batch. There is no explanation in the pleadings as to how petitioner could have raised the invoices to respondents for such agreements that had come to end on 31.3.2011, for the months of July, August and September 2011. From the statement of account submitted for Zee Turner in all these petitions, it is not possible to find any outstanding pertaining to the period when the agreement between the parties were subsisting. Prima facie, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any decree against the respondents.
6. The petitions, on the face of it, are frivolous and are liable to be dismissed with costs. They are accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- for wasting the time of the Tribunal. A receipt showing payment of cost (to be paid in the name of Drawing & Disbursing Officer, TDSAT) to the Mediation Centre of the Tribunal must be filed within a month from today.
..………………. (Kuldip Singh) 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