had also been contended that the ledger account, which, according to the petitioner, was being maintained in the regular course of business, would show that despite the petitioner’s claim that supply of signals had been effected only up to September, 2007, subscription fee for the month of October, 2007 had also been claimed. It had further been contended by the respondent that it had regularly been paying a sum of Rs. 1 lakh per month up to October, 2006. However, from November, 2006, the amount of subscription fee was increased by Rs.1750/- per month up to January, 2007. The respondents contend, which is denied and disputed by the petitioner, that transmission of signals was stopped in the month of February, 2007 when the petitioner insisted on enhancement of the subscription charges, whereupon, the same was increased to Rs.1,27,460 p.m. Thereafter, the respondent continued to make payment of the amount to the petitioner up to July, 2007. The respondents state that they had been forced to make a further deposit, e.g., a sum of Rs. 80,910/- by M/s Haith Cable. The amount, according to the respondents, is liable to be refunded and/or adjusted against the charges for August, 2007. The case of the respondent is that the hike in the subscription charges, which having been found to be unreasonable, they migrated to Hathway.
