This tribunal dismissed a complaint by M/s Gadwal Communications Network against Gemini T.V. and others for alleged unilateral disconnection of TV signals. The court held the Respondent was justified in acting on a letter signed by a former partner without further notice.
The petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
6/7/2018
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI
DATED 13TH JULY, 2005
PETITION No.30(C) OF 2005 (M.A.No.78 of 2005)
M/s Gadwal Communications Network …Petitioner Vs
Gemini T.V. & Ors. …Respondents
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE,
CHAIRPERSON
MR. VINOD VAISH, MEMBER LT.GEN.D.P.SEHGAL(RETD.),MEMBER
:Mr.S.Chandra Sekhar,Advocate
For Respondents 1- 4 :Mr.K.K.Mani,Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Tribunal complaining that though it had an agreement with the 4th respondent to supply the signals of Gemini and Teja channels, Respondent No. 4 has unilaterally stopped the supply of the said signals without notice.
Notice of this petition was directed to be issued to the respondents. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a common counter-affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the agreement between 4th respondent and the petitioner was executed on behalf of the petitioner by one Shri G. Sridhar and that very person on 3rd January 2005 wrote a letter to the 4th respondent seeking disconnection of the signals by 5th February 2005. It was also stated in this letter it is stated that the petitioner will not be in a position to pay subscription to the 4th respondent from that day. Therefore, the 4th respondent contends that it is consequent to the said letter that the disconnection had taken place and the allegation of the petitioner that the disconnection was unilateral and without notice is unsustainable.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, contended that though it is true that the agreement between the petitioner and the 4th respondent was signed by said Shri G. Sridhar because he was a partner at that point of time, in the month of January 2005 said Shri Sridhar, and another partner Mrs. Jyothi, separated from the partnership and have started a parallel business. It is because of the said reason it is possible that a letter which is referred to by the 4th
file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202005/Petition%20No.30(C).htm
1/2
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
6/7/2018
Respondent might have been issued with malafide intention. He submitted that the letter was in reality not written on behalf of the petitioner and therefore no reliance should be placed on the said letter. We are unable to accept this contention once it is admitted that the agreement between the petitioner and the 4th Respondent is signed by said Shri G. Sridhar, it was the obligation of the petitioner firm if really the said Shri Sridhar and Mrs. Jyothi had left the partnership to intimate the 4th Respondent and caution the 4th Respondent not to take any action based on any representation to be made by the said persons. No such representation was made and, therefore, in our opinion 4th respondent was well within his rights to rely upon the said letter and act accordingly. We also find from the pleadings that the contention of the learned counsel that said Sridhar has written the letter with malafide intention is not supported by any other evidence or material on record. That being the case, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner and hence the petition is dismissed.
…….……………..J (N. Santosh Hegde) Chairperson
………………. (Vinod Vaish) Member ………………. (D.P.Sehgal) Member
file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202005/Petition%20No.30(C).htm
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was obligated to notify Respondent No. 4 about the departure of Shri Sridhar before relying on his letter for disconnection.
M/s Gadwal Communications Network
Gemini T.V.
Teja Channels
N. Santosh Hegde
Vinod Vaish
As recorded by the court registry
A petition before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in a broadcasting or cable-distribution dispute.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
