SHRI SAI VISION Vs STAR INDIA PVT LTD
- Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/149/2005
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A petition becomes infructuous, and is not pressed further, as regards a petitioner against whom no dispute subsists. Where an MSO's agreement with a broadcaster bars it from supplying signals to an area in which a cable operator has subscribers, the cable operator must seek signals through the broadcaster, which nominates in writing an MSO for that area. Supply by the nominated MSO is conditional on the cable operator entering into a subscription agreement with it, and is to be made in accordance with the Interconnection Regulations.
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 DATED 6TH MARCH, 2006 Petition No.149(C) of 2005 Shri Sai Vision & Anr. …Petitioner Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE, CHAIRPERSON LT.GEN.D.P.SEHGAL(RETD.),MEMBER For Petitioners : Mr.Prabhat Kumar,Advocate For Respondent No.1-Star : Mr.Prateek Jalan with Mr.Ashish Jha, Mr.Sarvesh Singh and Ms.Simran Brar, Advocates ORDER This petition is filed by two petitioners. The Respondent No.1 is represented before this Tribunal while Respondent No.2, though served, has not appeared. Therefore, Respondent No.2 is set ex-parte.
It is submitted that so far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, there is no more subsisting dispute. Hence, this Petition has become infructuous so far as that Petitioner is concerned.
So far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned who is a cable operator, it is stated that he has been receiving signals from the 1st Petitioner who is an MSO of the 1st Respondent. It is submitted on behalf of the said respondent that as per the present agreement that Petitioner cannot supply signals to the area in which 2nd Petitioner is having its subscribers. Therefore, it is incumbent on the 2nd Petitioner to approach 2nd Respondent herein who is the authorized agent for the concerned area, seeking signals.
We direct the Petitioner No.2 to approach Respondent No.1 who will in writing nominate an MSO, who in turn will have to give signals to Petitioner No.2 subject to the condition that Petitioner No.2 enters into a subscription agreement with the said MSO. If Petitioner No.2 approaches the said MSO and signs the agreement, the signals will be supplied to the said Petitioner by the said MSO in accordance with the Interconnection Regulations. -2-
5. This petition stands disposed of with the above directions.
…..……………..J (N.Santosh Hegde) Chairperson
………………. (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