WARANA CABLE NETWORK THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR GOVIND MEHRA Vs. ZEE TURNER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner herein claims to be a Multi Service Operator (MSO) in the cable sector, serving arwithin Warana Nagar and Kolhapur, Maharashtra. It is stated that under an agreement dated 1st February, 2000 with Respondent No.1, Broadcaster, Petitioner was directly receiving signals of Zee on a subscriber base of 600 and on that basis he has been paying subscription as per the terms of the agreement between the parties. It contends that most of its subscribers are within Warana Nagar but a few of them are in Kolhapur Town and right from the beginning, Petitioner has been supplying signals to its subscribers both in Warana Nagar and Kolhapur and no objection was ever raised by the first Respondent for this arrangement of the Petitioner. It is further contended that in October, 2005, Respondent No.1, for the first time after three years, sought information regarding subscriber base and the areas in which the petitioner was providing cable service. It is stated that in the said letter three days notice is given to the Petitioner for providing the required information failing which the Petitioner's signals were threatened to be disconnected. A copy of the said letter dated 17.10.2005 received by the Petitioner is annexed to the Petition as Annexure P-I. THE Petitioner contends that this notice was given to coerce the Petitioner to subscribe to a more expensive bouquet of channels and is not a bonafide notice.

(2.) The Petitioner further contends that in spite of the notice dated 17.10.2005, signals of the Petitioner were not disconnected since the representative of the Petitioner met the representatives of the first Respondent and sorted out the dispute.

(3.) IT is further contended that in spite of the above, the first Respondent tried to reopen the issue of unauthorized transmission of signals by its letter dated 21st January, 2006 based on the area mentioned in the subscription agreement between the parties which according to the first Respondent confined the distribution of its signals by the Petitioner to Warana Nagar only. The Petitioner contends that this agreement, though signed by the Petitioner, was blank when it was signed and the area of distribution in this agreement was subsequently included by the first Respondent which is evident to naked eye from the ink, pen and the writing as compared to the contents found in Page 1 of the agreement.