Disposed

Cable Network Operators Welfare Association v. Asianet Digital Network [P] Limited

Kerala HC1 Nov 2018Con.Case(C)/1490/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case regarding non-compliance of an interim order, the court observed that the disputed connections were restored after payment of fees. The court concluded there was no wilful violation and closed the petition, reserving the fee rate issue for the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty granted to raise fee rate contentions in the writ petition.

Cable Network Operators Welfare Association Vs Asianet… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1490 of 2018 IN WP(C). 16051/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC 16051/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28-05-2018

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶8

1 CABLE NETWORK OPERATORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, REGISTERED BODY,BEARING REG.NO.KKD/CA/646/2016, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,GOPI CHAKKUNATHU, AGED 53,S/O.NARAYANI AMMA, VENGANELLUR, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 586.

¶9

2 SANTHOSH, AGED 35 YERS, S/O.OUSEPH.P.T.,PUNNAMOOTTIL HOUSE, OTTAPPALAM,THOTTAKARA, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 102.

¶10

3 MADHUKUMAR,

¶11

AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.NAMPUTHARAYIL VISWANATHAN,PILZPUZHA, HARIPAD, ALEPPY DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.D.SREEVISAKH

¶13

CONTEMNORS/5TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION AND ITS OFFICIAL:

¶14

1 ASIANET DIGITAL NETWORK [P] LIMITED, REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE,2A, 2ND FLOOR, LEELA INFOPARK,TECHNO PARK, KAZHAKOOTAM, KARYAVATTOM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 581, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶15

2 SANKARANARAYANAN.G.,

¶16

AGE, FATHER'S NAME & RESIDENCE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,PRESIDENT & CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ASIANET DIGITAL NETWORK (P) LTD., REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE, 2A, 2ND FLOOR,LEELA INFOPARK, TECHNO PARK,KAZHAKOOTAM, KARYAVATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPRAM - 695 581.

¶17

Cont. Case (C) No.1490 of 2018

¶18

¶19

3 PADMAKUMAR.N., AGE, FATHER'S NAME & RESIDENCE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,ASIANET DIGITAL NETWORK (P) LTD.,REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE, 2A, 2ND FLOOR, LEELA INFOPARK,TECHNO PARK, KAZHAKOOTAM,KARYAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 581.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI. SAJI VARGHESE

¶21

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Cont. Case (C) No.1490 of 2018

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This contempt case is filed complaining that the interim order passed by this Court on 28.05.2018 is not complied with.

¶26

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, refuting the allegations in the contempt petition. It is stated thereunder that, the connection provided to the petitioners were disconnected, consequent to the non-payment of the fees by the petitioners at the rate of Rs.38/- per subscriber. However, during the

¶27

pendency of this contempt case, amounts at the rate of Rs.38/- were paid and the connections were restored.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶29

As per the interim order, a direction was issued to the 5^th respondent not to disrupt the supply to the petitioners and members of the 1^st petitioner association, if they have paid the dues in accordance with law up to

¶30

30.04.2018, and continues to pay fees in accordance with

¶31

the dues fixed and hereafter fixed by

¶32

TRAI/Regulations/agreement. Other directions were also issued.

¶33

From the pleadings put forth by the respective

¶34

parties, and on the basis of the submissions made at the

¶35

Cont. Case (C) No.1490 of 2018

¶36

¶37

Bar, it is evident that the connections are restored,

¶38

consequent to the payment of fees, as specified above. According to learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶39

petitioners are liable to pay fees only at the rate of

¶40

Rs.30/-. Anyway, that is a subject matter to be

¶41

adjudicated in the writ petition.

¶42

As of now, I am of the considered opinion that, there is no wilful or deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents in violation of the directions contained in the interim order. It is also evident that, consequent to payment of fees at the rate of Rs.38/-, the connections were restored. Therefore, I do not think that there is anything survives to be considered in the contempt petition.

¶43

The contempt case is closed, recording the above said developments and leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to raise all the contentions with respect to the charges that are to be paid by the petitioners in the writ petition.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Cont. Case (C) No.1490 of 2018

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶51

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.16051 OF 2018 DATED 28.5.2018.

¶52

ANNEXURE -II A TRUE COPY OF THE LEDGER FOLIO OF CUSTOMER ID JC91018428 DATED NIL. ANNEXURE-III SCREENSHOT OF WHATTSAPP COMMUNICATION DATED NIL FROM BDM AND AMO, HARIPAD, OF 1ST CONTEMNOR COMPANY, TO 3RD PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-IV A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT DATED 17.5.2018 DRAWN BY THE 3RD PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF 1ST CONTEMNOR. ANNEXURE-V A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE COURIER COMPANY TO 3RD PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-VI A TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL COMMUNICATION OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 31.5.2018. ANNEXURE-VII A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PRESIDENT OF 1ST PETITIONER ASSOCIATION DATED 19.7.2018.

¶53

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶56

St/-

Cable Network Operators Welfare Association v. Asianet Digital Network [P] Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cable Network Operators Welfare Association v. Asianet Digital Network [P] Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariya Construction Vs Dr.a Kowsigan I.A.S

Mahesh E.P. Vs Assamannur Grama Panchayath

Ansy Rajan Vs Corporation of Kochi

N.v.Paulose Vs Ajayakumar I.A.S

K.M.Mosah Vs the Secretary

Mr.v.Mohanan Pillai Vs Navaikulam Grama Panchayat