SHANSKARDHANI CABLE NETWORK Vs. DATT ENTERPRISES AND DATT ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Section 16 read with Section 19 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1999 (TRAI Act) for execution of the Order of this Tribunal dated 29th March, 2006 made in Petition No. 77(C) of 2005 to which the parties are the same as in this Petition.

(2.) Petition No. 77(C) of 2005 was filed by the present Petitioner alleging that it had a Subscription Agreement dated 5th October, 2004 for the supply of signals of the 1st Respondent/Broadcaster. It is also alleged in the said Petition that at that point of time the 1st Respondent had the 2nd Respondent as its distributor and local agent at Jabalpur with whom the Petitioner had some dispute, particulars of which were given in the said Petition. It was further stated in that Petition that the Petitioner herein had complained to the 1st Respondent against the 2nd Respondent and requested the 1st Respondent to stop the illegal acts of the 2nd Respondent. A copy of the letter in this regard dated 13.10.2004 was annexed to that Petition as Annexure �G�. In that Petition there was also allegation as to various disputes the Petitioner had with the 2nd Respondent, which the Petitioner had contended that it had brought to the notice of the 1st Respondent. There was also an allegation against the 1st Respondent that it was discriminating between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent. It has further alleged that in the background of these complaints the 1st Respondent to favour the 2nd Respondent had disconnected the signals to the Petitioner without affording any opportunity and without assigning any reasons. It was also alleged that after the disconnection on 05.11.2004 the Petitioner received a notice on 12.11.2004 and the said notice was dated 03.11.2004 wherein it was alleged that the Petitioner was illegally transmitting 1st Respondent�s signals beyond the areas specified in the Agreement which the Petitioner had contended as wholly false and is only a rouse to disconnect the signals to it so that the 2nd Respondent can take over the business of the Petitioner.

(3.) IN our order dated 29.03.2006 we after noticing the allegations made against each other, did not go into the same because it was not necessary for us to decide those issues more so because other proceedings were pending between the parties. Hence, we framed two issues for consideration in that Petition which are as follows: