C H ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD Vs. STAR INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition was receiving signals of the first respondent under a subscription agreement on a monthly subscription payable @ 1.5 lakhs. On 22.2.2005 the first respondent informed the petitioner that it had appointed the second respondent as its agent for the limited purpose mentioned in the said letter and that the said letter also indicated that the petitioner should pay the monthly subscription in terms of the subscription agreement directly to the second respondent by way of demand Draft to be drawn in favour of the second respondent. Five months later i.e. on 22.7.2005 the first respondent informed the petitioner that it has terminated its agency with the second respondent. THErefore, it should make payments directly to the first respondent from the month of July, 2005. Since the first respondent did not receive the subscription due for the months of July, August and September it issued a notice of termination for non payment of the dues to the petitioner threatening disconnection of the signals.

(2.) Petitioner challenged the above disconnection by way of this petition wherein among other prayers it prayed for direction to the first respondent not to disconnect signals of the petitioner. It was also prayed that in the event of disconnection if they have done already the same should be reactivated. The second prayer was made seeking a direction to the first respondent for refund of a sum of Rs. 10.28 lakhs allegedly made by the petitioner to the second respondent as being a payment in access of the amount really due to the first respondent. It is curious to notice the fact that even thought the petitioner alleges that most of the payments made during this period between February and July were to the first respondent as directed in the letter of the first respondent dated 22.2.2005. No prayer seeking the prepayment of the said amount is made against the second respondent.

(3.) WHEN the petition was filed before this Tribunal, the Tribunal by its order dated 28.10.2005 directed the first respondent to reconnect the signals which were supplied to the petitioner on a condition that the petitioner keeps paying the amount due to the first respondent regularly. We are told that from the date of the direction of the Tribunal the signals are being received by the petitioner and the petitioner is making payments for the same.