HATHWAY CABLE AND DATACOM PVT LTD Vs. STAR VISION CABLE NETWORK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by M/s Hathway Cable & Datacom Pvt. Ltd and Another against a public notice dated 6.8.2008 issued by the Respondent, MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd, threatening to disconnect the signals for taking unauthorized feed. The case of the 1st Petitioner- Hathway Cable & Datacom Pvt. Ltd -is that it had, on 26.2.2008, taken over the 2nd Petitioner -Star Vision Cable Network- with effect from 1.3.2008 and that the Respondent was duly informed by both the Petitioners requesting that the Integrated Reception Devices (IRDs) issued in the name of the 2nd Petitioner be transferred in favour of the 1st Petitioner. It was also indicated by both the Petitioners that while outstanding dues upto 29.2.2008, if any, would be paid by the 2nd Petitioner, all payments w.e.f. 1.3.2008 will be paid for by the 1st Petitioner. It is contended that the Respondent vide its e-mail dated 1.4.2008 recognised the takeover of the Star Vision Cable Network by the 1st Petitioner. Subsequently, the Respondent had informed Star Vision Cable Network to pay a sum of Rs. 47,596/- which the 1st Petitioner paid itself although it was not required to do so.

(2.) The Petitioner's case is that while it had sought the Validation forms from the Respondent, the latter had informed it that these forms could only be sent after the transfer of the network was confirmed. According to the Petitioner, it had informed the Respondent 16.6.2008 that it had shifted the Headends from the premises of the 1st Petitioner. The Petitioner also stated that the Respondent continued to raise the invoices in the name of the 2nd Petitioner and moreover on 25.7.2008, issued a notice to the 2nd Petitioner that it has been unauthorisedly retransmitting the signals in the certain unauthorized areas of Lucknow city. The Respondent also issued notice dated 6.8.2008 in two newspapers threatening to disconnect the signals. The prayer of the Petitioner is to declare this public notice as illegal, null and void and to restrain the Respondent from switching off or disconnecting the signals and to pass such other orders as deemed fit.

(3.) WHEN the case came up for hearing on 14.1.2009, both the parties stated that settlement talks were going on. Time was given to file the pleadings and the Respondent was directed not to act on the public notice dated 6.8.2008. Again, when the matter was heard on 3.2.2009, the Petitioner agreed to pay to the Respondent on the basis of 5,144 subscribers w.e.f. 1.12.2008 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties and subject to the adjustment on the basis of final determination.