TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI

 

DATED 15TH MAY,2007

M.A.No.75 of 2007

                                                                        IN

Petition No.326(C) of  2006

 

M/s  Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.                                                       …Petitioner

 

Vs.

 

Star India Pvt. Ltd.                                                                                       …Respondent

 

BEFORE:

 

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR,CHAIRPERSON

LT.GEN.D.P.SEHGAL(RETD.),MEMBER

 

For Petitioner

:

Mr.A.S.Chandeok,Senior Advocate with

Mr.Navin Chawla,

Ms.Shirin Khajuria,

Mr.Sunil Tandon,

Mr.Arjun Suresh,Advocates

 

For Respondent

:

Mr.Parag Tripathi,Senior Advocate with

Mr.Gopal Jain,Mr.Manu Krishnan,

Ms.Simran Brar,

Ms.Amrita,Advocates

 

O R D E R

 

 

Issue notice on main petition as well as on M.A.75 of 2007.  Mr Gopal Jain along with Ms.Brar accepts notice.  Mr.Jain has pointed out that the petitioner has not paid the monthly charges for the months of March and April, 2007.  Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has paid the monthly charges only upto February,2007. However, he submits that in view of this Tribunal’s order dated 30.3.07 in Petition No.39(C) of 2004 the petitioner has overpaid the respondent.   

 

Our attention has been drawn to the interim orders passed by the Delhi High Court on 17.5.06, 23.4.07 and 7.5.07.  From these orders it is clear that the High Court had by way of interim direction fixed an amount of Rs.62 lakhs per month payable by petitioner  to respondent which order has been continued by the High Court and the last order in this connection is order dated 7.5.07 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the oeprative part whereof is as under:

“Till the next date the interim order shall continue without prejudice to the rights of the respondent to obtain an order from the TDSAT in petition No.326/C/ 2006.”

 

The present is the Petition No.326(C) of 2006 in which today we have issued notice to the respondent.  Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays that the amount of Rs.62 lakhs per month payable under the order of the High Court be modified so as to bring it down to the figure fixed by this Tribunal vide its order passed in Petition No.39(C) of 2004.  We are afraid that the modification could be only after giving a chance of hearing to the respondent which we have given by issuing notice in the petition today.  The question of modification will arise only after hearing the respondent on this issue.  The High Court has vide its order dated 7.5.07 continued the interim order in spite of the fact that this Tribunal’s order relied by petitioner was passed earlier on 30.3.07.

 

Reply be filed to the main petition as well as M.A.No.75 of 2007 within four weeks as prayed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.  Rejoinder to the replies be filed within two weeks thereafter. 

 

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner gives an undertaking that the petitioner will pay for the month of March Rs.62 lakhs within one week from today and for the month of April he says same amount will be paid within two weeks from today directly to the respondent.  This is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.  In view of this undertaking, the respondent will continue supply of signals to the petitioner and the petitioner will continue to pay on the same basis till further orders.  Interim application will be heard on the next date.

 

 

List on 16th July,2007

 

…………………..J

(Arun Kumar)

Chairperson

                                   

 

 

……………….

(D.P.Sehgal)

Member