- (1.)THE petitioner herein is a distributor of TV channels. The respondent is a content aggregator of various channels including the Sun Group of Broadcasters.
(2.)THE petitioner filed a petition before this Tribunal, which was marked as Petition No. 255 (C) of 2010. By an order dated 03.8.2010, the prayer for an order of injunction in that petition was refused, as had been prayed for, stating : - One of the contentions raised by Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before us was that the public notice had been published only in one newspaper and not in any regional newspaper. Ms. Sibal produced before us copies of two newspapers to show the requirements of clause 4.3 of regulations has in fact been complied with. The petitioner has even not annexed the copies of the invoices for the months of January, 2009 to March, 2009 wherein the number of subscriber base in respect of the aforementioned three channels would tally with those in the agreement. Nothing has been produced before us to show that the petitioner has at any point of time, raised any protest thereagainst. If the contention of the petiitoner is correct, we would have expected it to come out with a true disclosure of the amount which was payble by it to the respondent and/or the number of its subscribers in respect of different channels. We say so particularly in view of the fact that atleast in relation to Gemini Bouquet, the respondent has shown the subscriber base to be only 3710 vis -a -vis the statement of the petitioner that it had 5450 connections. Even in relation to the said channels, the petitioner has also not produced before us its statement of account to show as to even according to it how much was payable and how much it had been paying to the respondent on a monthly basis. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that petitioner has failed to make out any prima facie case for passing of an order of interim injunction in its favour. We, therefore, reject the prayer of the petitioner for granting an order of ad -interim injunction.
(3.)THE said petition was permitted to be withdrawn on a prayer made by petitioner herein with leave to petitioner to file another petition by an order dated 06.9.2010. The said order reads as under: - Mr.Nasir Hussain, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.Jayant K.Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that this petition may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. Such a liberty is granted. In this view of the matter, this petition is permitted to be withdrawn.
This petition has been filed on or about 20.9.2010 on almost similar grounds on which the earlier petition was filed.