TELECOM DISPUTES
SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DATED 13TH
AUGUST,2008
PETITION No.226(C) OF 2007
Richard Cable
Network & Anr.
Petitioners
Versus
Star India Private
Limited & Anr.
Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE
ARUN KUMAR,CHAIRPERSON
DR. J. S. SARMA, MEMBER
MR.G.
D. GAIHA, MEMBER
|
For Petitioners |
: |
Mr.Vineet
Bhagat,Advocate |
|
For Respondent
No.1 |
: |
Mr.Ramji
Srinivasan,Senior Advocate with Mr. Prateek
Kumar,Advocate |
ORDER
The agreement between the parties
was said to have been executed on 1.1.07.
Therefore, the period under the agreement is over. The Petitioner No.1 has prayed for issuance
of a direction to Respondent No.1 not to disconnect the transmission of Star TV
signals to Petitioner No.1. The supply
of signals to Petitioner No.1 was disconnected on 16.8.07 and it is almost one
year that the petitioner is not getting Star signals. Now that there is no agreement in place, the
question of issuing a direction for supply of signals does not arise. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1 has pointed out that substantial amount is due from the
Petitioner No.2 to the said respondent.
It is also pointed out that Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and Respondent No.2 are
interconnected. They have tried to
deprive Respondent No.1 of its legitimate dues by with-holding money payable to
Respondent No.1. Our attention has also
been drawn to minutes dated 15.10.07 in which Petitioner No.1 had participated
and Respondent No.1 is also a party to the minutes. It is noted in the minutes that total amount
of Rs.4,80,987.59 (subject to reconciliation on 20.10.07), the total amount
will be remitted to Star India Pvt. Ltd. my means of a Demand Draft payable at
Panaji,Goa. It is submitted that Mr.
Richard D'Costa is a signatory to these minutes and the fact that the amount is
payable by him is acknowledged at page-73 of the petition which is part of
these minutes. The learned counsel for
Respondent No.1 submits that this amount has not been received by the
respondent so far. It is also added that
another reason for disconnection of supply of signals to Petitioner No.1 was
admitted piracy.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
relies on an alleged No Due Certificate said to have been issued by Respondent
No.2 to the effect that petitioners have cleared all their dues to Respondent
No.2. However, this does not mean that
the liability towards Respondent No.1 is wiped out. For all these reasons, we are of the view
that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this petition. The same is dismissed. However, if so advised, the petitioners may
approach Respondent No.1 for supply of signals in accordance with the
Regulations.
..
.
..J
(Arun Kumar)
Chairperson
.....
(J. S. Sarma)
Member
.....
(G. D. Gaiha)
Member