UTSAV COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD Vs MEDIA PRO ENTERPRISE INDIA PVT. LTD.

ORDER The petitioner by this petition, inter alia, sought for a direction upon the respondent herein to withdraw its public notice dated 30.5.2011. The parties hereto have entered into an agreement. The petitioner contends that it had signed a blank copy of subscription agreement and a copy thereof had not been supplied to it.

It is admitted that a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by and between the Petitioner and Zee Turner Ltd., the predecessor in interest of the respondent herein in respect of Zee Group of Channels, whereby and whereunder the parties had entered into an agreement in terms whereof the applicant was to pay a sum of Rs.29,952/- per month inclusive of service tax. By reason of the said agreement between the parties hereto the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs.6,93,844/- by way of arrears. The respondent, however, contends that a sum of Rs.89,854/-was due from the petitioner which is in the following term: “Utsav Cable TV Network Statement of accounts for the period from 01.04.2011 to 30.06.2011 as per ZTL. Month Billing Collection Credit note as Cum per MOU Balance Opening 419,446 Balance as on 01.04.2011 Apr-11 29,952 449,397 May-11 29,952 419,446 59,903 June-11 29,952 89,854 Total 89,855 419,446 89,854

It is furthermore stated that not only a copy of the agreement was signed, but also delivered to Mr. Anand Kumar on the date of execution of the agreement itself. So far as Star Group of Channels is concerned, it is stated that a subscription agreement was entered into with effect from 1.1.2011 and in terms thereof a sum of Rs.2,01,322.59 inclusive of taxes became payable. A copy of the said agreement, according to the respondent, has also been served upon the Petitioner. Respondent herein admittedly has taken over distribution of both Star and Zee Groups of Channels with effect from 1.7.2011. So far as Media Pro Enterprises is concerned, a statement of account has been filed which read as under: S. NO NAME CITY PINCODE BARCODE WAT RATE 98 CABLE INDIA CORPORATION GOA 403802 EM02131000RIN 30 22.67 99 RAJAT CABLE NETWORK SATARA 405001 EM021310011IN 30 22.67 100 IRANI CABLE N/W THANE 401602 EM021310025IN 30 108 101 COSTA CALE TV CO AND D/GOA GOA 403706 EM021310039IN 30 22.67 102 PADMESH CITY CABLE N/W BALAGHAT 481001 EM021310042 IN 30 22.67 103 KERALA VISION LTD THRISSUR 680010 EM021310056 IN 30 22.67 104 SAT LINKS PAJAKKAN 679121 EM021310060 IN 30 22.67 105 PUTTUR CABLE NETWORK PUTTUR 574202 EM021310073 IN 30 22.67 106 PRIGEVIEW BROAD BAND KANGRA 176031 EM021310087 IN 30 22.67 107 NEW NEELKANTH STAR M L BADDI 174001 EM021310095 IN 30 22.67 108 J R CABLE NETWORK MIZORAM 796701 EM021310100 IN 30 22.67 109 JADCHERLA COMMUNICATION MEHBOOBNAGA 509301 EM02131013 IN 30 22.67 R 110 J R COMMUNICATION PVT LTD NAI GONAD 508001 EM021310127 IN 30 22.67 111 OMEGA SAT NETWORK KANNUR 673310 EM021310135 IN 30 22.67 112 MUSSOORIE CABLE N/W DEHRADUN 248179 EM021310144 IN 30 22.67 113 TADEPALLIGUDEM CABLE GODAVARI 534101 EM021310158 IN 30 22.67 114 SPACE CABLE NETWORK P RAIGARH 410207 EM021310161 IN 30 22.67 115 KOOT CABLE COMMUNICATION KANNUR 670643 EM02131017 IN 30 22.67

116 AYYAPPA SWAMY SITI CABLE KADAPA 516360 EM021310189 IN 30 22.67 117 UTSAV CABLE NETWORK HOSHANGARD 461001 EM021310192 IN 30 22.67 118 BRIDGEVIEW BROADBAND DHAIPUR 175101 EM021310201 IN 30 22.67 119 MAIARAR COMMUNICATION ERNAKULAM 673616 EM021310215 IN 30 22.67 120 BRIDGEVIEW BROADBAND KANGRA 176115 EM021310229 IN 30 22.67 121 PRINCE NETWORK ROTHASH 821115 EM021310232 IN 30 22.67

REV 2719 SER TAX 280 TOTAL 3000

The controversy between the parties is with regard to the amount of subscription fee payable to the respondent. Whereas, according to the petitioner the subscription fee payable for Zee Bouquet of channels is Rs.29,000/- per month and for Star Bouquet of Channels it is for Rs.35,000/-; according to the respondent the same is for a sum of RS.2,02,000/-. The matter relating to grant of interim relief was heard by us on 9.11.2011. A statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.5.50 lakhs had been paid in favour of the respondent. The petitioner in terms of our direction of the said date has filed a banker’s certificate showing that it had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-to the respondent by a cheque bearing No.52 dated 30.6.2011 which has been encashed. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the application dated 11.11.2011 addressed to the Branch Manager, Standard Chartered Bank asking it for a certificate to the effect that it had drawn a DD for a sum of Rs.5000/- and had issued three cheques bearing No.126082 for Rs.1,00,000/-, 013678 and 013679 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each, but it had not been able to obtain any certificate in relation thereto as an endorsement thereupon has been made “will only be able to provide on receipt of necessary approvals”. It is, therefore, evident that there exists a serious dispute with regard to the payments said to have been made by the petitioner as also the quantum of subscription fees payable to the respondent. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the petitioner was served with a notice under Clauses 4.1 and a public notice under Clause 4.3 of the Regulations being dated 19.9.2011 and 30.9.2011 respectively. By reason of the said notice dated 19.9.2011, a sum of Rs.8,83,310 was said to be due. Only three days’ time had been granted to the petitioner to pay the said amount. It is now admitted that a credit note had been issued in favour of the petitioner for sum Rs.4,19,446/-. Had that credit note been issued before issuance of the said notice under Clause 4.1 of the Regulations, evidently the alleged outstanding from the petitioner would not have been Rs.8,83,310/- as on 31.8.2011 as shown in the invoice or otherwise. The said credit note, therefore, must have been issued only after the said date.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the petitioner for the reasons aforementioned had made out a case for grant of an order of injunction in its favour. It has rightly been pointed out by Ms. Jain that there also appears to be slight inconsistency in the claim of the respondent that a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- was payable for the Star Bouquet of channels and Rs.27,000/- for the Zee Bouquet of channels which with tax would come to Rs.2,30,000/- and not Rs.2,01,000/-. Our attention has further been drawn to an invoice for the month of June, 2011 to show the following:

16076 Utsav Cable TV Network INVOICE DATE 23/05/2011 Anand Parsaniya INVOICE REF. NUMBER ZTL/16076/158162 B-48, S.P.M. COLONY CUSTOMER CODE 16076 Near Jai Satamb, Hoshangabad CUSTOMER TYPE CATV 461001- Hoshangbad Hoshangabad, 461001, Madhya Pradesh PAYMENT DUE DATE:- 10/06/2011 Contact Number 0 9425606999

Particulars Period Amount (in Rs.) Subscription Charge 01/06/2011-30/06/2011 27,154.60 Service Tax 10% 2,715.46 Sec And Higher Educess 1% 27.15 Education Cess 2% 54.31 Total Invoice Amount:- 29,951.52 Previous Period Outstanding:- 479,351.37 Total Dues/ Outstanding ( For Bill wise breakup of outstanding Bills, refer to attached List):- 509,302.90 Total Payable ( in words):- Rupees Five Lakh Nine Thousand Three Hundred Two and Ninety Paisa Only Last Payment Received vide Demand Draft No:- 110538 Dated : 28/06/2010 for Rs. 20, 800.00

Prima facie again, the amount of Rs.4,79,351.37 was shown due although the petitioner was entitled to the credit of the said amount. We may also notice that according to the petitioner the statement of account filed by the respondent should not prima facie be relied upon on that premise. The ad interim order is, therefore, made absolute subject to the condition that petitioner without prejudice to its rights and contentions of the parties shall continue to make payments of the subscription fee to the extent of Rs.2,01,000/- to the respondent for the months of December, 2011 onwards. The prayer of interim order is disposed of with the aforementioned directions.

(S.B. Sinha) Chairperson (P.K. Rastogi) Member November 24, 2011 `anu’