(i) It is a fact that the agreement which has been signed in June, 1999 for a period of 5 years has expired in the year 2004. This agreement has not been renewed and a request has been made to the respondent that another agreement may be signed which was signed somewhere in December, 2006. This request has culminated into signing of another agreement of 3rd December, 2006 which was for the CAS area. As such there appears to be no agreement from June, 2004 for the Non-CAS area till April, 2008 when the signals of the petitioner to the network were disconnected. The attempt by the petitioner to prove that the relationship has continued and there is implied agreement between the two parties is not possible to be established for the Non-CAS area beyond the year 2004 exactly as per the terms of MoU of Jan, 1999. The reliance of the petitioner on the agreement of June, 1999, till April, 2008 and in between signing another agreement in December, 2006 for the CAS area and relying on the same appears to be as sailing in two boats simultaneously just to somehow or the other establish the relationship with the respondent. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is neither any agreement for the Non-CAS area nor any implied relationship for the NonCAS area after June 2002, except for a residual type of relationship merely for the purpose of collection of the subscription amount from the subscribers of the petitioner on getting some commission for this act, by the respondent. This relationship completely absolves the respondent from any other function which forms the part of the June, 1999 agreement except for being a commission agent as a distributor. The respondent is, therefore, not a
