SHANSKARDHANI CABLE NETWORK ALSO CALLED J CABLE Vs. STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND DATT ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner claims to be a Multi System Operator in Jabalpur catering to its subscribers with signals of various channels of broadcasters including that of the 1st Respondent until the present dispute arose between them. It is stated that the Petitioner entered into a Subscription Agreement dated 05.10.2004 for receipt of signals of the 1st Respondent/broadcaster and accordingly it was provided seven decoders for redistribution of signals of Star bouquet of channels. It is contended in the Petition that copy of the Agreement dated 05.10.2004 has not been furnished to the Petitioner till date. It is also stated that at the time Petitioner entered into an Agreement with the 1st Respondent, it had supplied a list of its subscribers to the 1st Respondent, a copy of which is annexed to this Petition as Annexure 'D'. It is also contended that the Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 17,500/- as security with the 1st Respondent towards the decoders supplied to it and the Petitioner had agreed to pay a monthly subscription at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- which it did for the month of October, 2004. THE Petitioner further contends that it was compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 9,67,290.48 as advance by the 1st Respondent which payment was made by the Petitioner, the receipt for all of which are produced as Annexure 'D', 'E' & 'F' to the Petition.

(2.) The Petitioner contends that the 2nd Respondent is a distributor and local agent of 1st Respondent at Jabalpur. It is also alleged that the 2nd Respondent is run and managed by a network called 'M//s. Bhaskar Television Network' who tried to compel the Petitioner to merge itself with the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioner had turned down this merger proposal, consequent to which there were disputes between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent. Hence, the Petitioner was compelled to write a letter to the 1st Respondent asking it to stop the illegal acts of the 2nd Respondent of poaching its cable operators as per its letter dated 13.10.2004 annexed to the Petition as Annexure 'G'. There are other allegations in the Petition as to various disputes the Petitioner has with the 2nd Respondent, which the Petitioner contends it has brought to the notice of the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner alleges that the 1st Respondent, for reasons better known to them, is discriminating between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioner then contends that on 05.11.2004 at about 7.00 PM, the 1st Respondent disconnected its signals without affording any opportunity to the Petitioner to know the reasons for such disconnection. The Petitioner contends that a Show Cause Notice of the 1st Respondent dated 03.11.2004 was received by the Petitioner only on 12.11.2004 and in that it was alleged that Petitioner was indulging in illegal transmission of signals beyond the area specified in the Agreement, which the Petitioner contends is wholly false and is only a ruse to disconnect the signals to the Petitioner so that 2nd Respondent can take over the business of the Petitioner.

(3.) IT is in the above background that the Petitioner has sought a direction from this Tribunal for the supply of signals of Star channel and has stated that it is ready and willing to enter into a fresh agreement with the Respondent. IT has also prayed for payment of Rs. 50 lacs as compensation for arbitrary and illegal disconnection of signals from 05.11.2004 and also for illegally retaining the money belonging to the Petitioner, among other incidental prayers. The 1st Respondent in its reply has generally denied the allegations made against it but has admitted that there was an Agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent dated 05.10.2004 for transmitting signals to a limited area on a monthly subscription of Rs. 1.6 lacs which has been paid by the Petitioner. IT has denied that there was any coercion from its side but has admitted that a sum of Rs. 9.67 lacs was deposited with it by the Petitioner as an advance for future payment of subscription. IT has also admitted that the Petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 17,500/- as security towards the decoders supplied to it. IT has, however, not denied the allegation made by the Petitioner that the copy of the Agreement dated 5.10.2004 has not been furnished to the Petitioner except stating that Petitioner did not demand the copy of the Agreement.