The Tribunal disposed of a petition seeking restoration of disconnected signals as infructuous because the petitioner voluntarily vacated an interim order following the termination of the subscription agreement due to payment default.
Petition disposed of as having become infructuous.
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 23RD MARCH, 2006
PETITION No. 35(C) OF 2005
(M.A.No. 100 of 2005)
Darshan Infocom Services Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Vs
Set Discovery Pvt. Limited & Anr. …Respondents
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE,
CHAIRPERSON
MR. VINOD VAISH, MEMBER LT.GEN.D.P.SEHGAL(RETD.),MEMBER
For Petitioner : Mr.Prabhat Kumar,Advocate For Respondent No.1-Set Discovery : Mr.Aditya Narain,Advocate For Respondent No.2-Network : None Entertainment Team
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to restore signals which were disconnected for unauthorized supply of signals. By an interim order dated 25th April,2005, we had directed the respondents to reconnect the signals on the condition that the petitioner pays subscription regularly. It was thereafter pointed out to the Tribunal that the petitioner has defaulted in the payment of subscription. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that because of certain financial difficulties that the petitioner could not pay the subscription, hence he sought for the vacation of the interim order. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain amounts have been paid to the respondent broadcaster which is vehemently denied by the learned counsel for the respondent broadcaster. Be that as it may, since the agreement has come to an end and the petitioner on its own has sought for vacation of the interim order consequent to which the petitioner is not receiving the signals of the respondent broadcaster, we think this petition has become infructuous. However, this will not come in the way of the petitioner negotiating with the respondent for fresh signals and signing a new agreement. This also does not preclude the right of the respondents to take recourse to law as is available for recovery of the amount due from the petitioner.
file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202006/Petition%20No.35(C)%20of%202005.htm
1/2
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
6/7/2018
…………………J (N.Santosh Hegde) Chairperson
…………….. (Vinod Vaish) Member
……………. (D.P.Sehgal) Member
file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202006/Petition%20No.35(C)%20of%202005.htm
2/2
Darshan Infocom Services Pvt. Ltd.
Set Discovery Pvt. Limited
Network Entertainment Team
N. Santosh Hegde
Vinod Vaish
D.P. Sehgal
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
