Star India Private Limited vs Shanskardhani Cable Netword
2005 Latest Caselaw 1747 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the interim Orders of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal dated 12.12.2005. The next hearing is scheduled for 12.1.2006. The gravamen of the Order is that the Star India Pvt. Ltd. must give direct signals to Sanskardhani Cable Network, as an interim measure, and the latter shall pay subscription on a subscriber base of 4200 and shall further deposit a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs as security. Star India Pvt. Ltd. would thereupon re-connect the signals within seventy two hours after the said security deposit is made.

2. Ordinarily a Court would not lightly interfere with interim Orders and arrangements made by another competent Authority. This principle is better expressed by stating that a Court should interfere in interim arrangements only where overwhelming reasons compel it to do so. Most often an interim arrangement has been devised on the invitation or consent of the parties. If one of the parties thereafter finds the Orders to be unfavorable to them and thereupon decides to assail such Orders, entertaining such challenges causes a miscarriage of justice and an explosion in litigation. It is with great reluctance and after deep reflection that I am pronouncing these Orders.

3. The Writ Petition has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Kailash Vasudeva, learned Senior counsel for the Respondent Sanskardhani Cable Network. He has emphasised the following paragraph from the Reply on behalf of the Star India Pvt. Ltd.

7. The Answering Respondent states that if the petitioner is interested in signals, which are confined to 1300 signals, the Answering Respondent will provide such signals subject to:-

i. The petitioner providing a list of its subscribers/cable operators along with their addresses;

ii. Confining themselves to a defined area or territory where these subscribers are based.

4. The contention is that the TDSAT has not traversed beyond the submissions of Star India itself. The Affidavit in which the extracted paragraph is to be found has been sworn as recently as on 7.12.2005. Obviously this submission had weighed in the mind of the learned Tribunal. It has also been contended that the interim Order would have cascading effect and widespread repercussions as spelt out by Mr. Jain, learned counsel for Star India Pvt. Ltd. The charges payable by Bhaskar Cable Network is on a subscriber base of 35,867/9030 and at the rate of Rs. 32.10/Rs.22 per subscriber per month. In other words, if Sanskardhani Cable Network also services its customers the arrangement of Star India Pvt. Ltd. with Bhaskar Cable Network would not be affected. The arrangement is that Bhaskar Cable Network has not been allotted a territory upon which Sanskardhani could trespass.

5. On behalf of Star India Pvt. Ltd. reliance has been placed on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of Pondicherry v. P.V. Suresh, , where it has been opined that the Court should abjure interference in contractual matters and ought not to alter terms of the contract or to re-write it. Mr. Jain has also relied on similar observations made in Orissa State Financial Corporation v. Narsing Ch. Nayak, , where the High Court has been cautioned not to venture into the realm of contractual obligations between the parties; it should not issue directions annulling existing contracts or introduce fresh ones in its stead. Significantly, in Star India (P) Ltd. v. Siti Cable Network Ltd., (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 304, the learned Chairman has himself opined in these words:

15. From the perusal of the impugned order, we are unable to come to the conclusion that the Commission has addressed itself to the various issues which arise for its consideration even at an interim stage before making the impugned order. As noticed above, any conclusive opinion expressed by us in this regard in these appeals is likely to pre-empt the arguments that may be addressed before the Commission in its future proceedings, therefore, we do not intend to discuss any further the correctness or otherwise of those contentions except to state that there is some justification in the argument addressed on behalf of the appellants that, as a matter of fact, the Commission by the impugned order without assigning any reason has changed the existing distribution system contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Haridas Exports.

...

18. Having come to the said conclusion, we have also give serious thought to the fact that the Commission has now posted the matter to 10-9-2003, hence, whether we should permit the continuation of the impugned order or not, till such time as the Commission passes any further order on or after 10-9-2003. Having done so, we are of the opinion that the impugned order to the extent state hereinabove, being contrary to the judgment of this Court in Haridas Exports falls outside the scope of Section 12-A. Firstly, because the Commission has not assigned any reason for exercise of its power under Section 12-A of the Act, secondly, because there is no indication in the impugned order that the same is being made on the basis of proved facts, and thirdly, if so, what is the basis for such conclusion. Therefore, the same being contrary to law, in our opinion, in spite of the fact that the matter is listed on 10-9-2003, the same has to be quashed.

6. The complexion of the impugned Order is not only to re-work a contract at the interim stage of hearing. Such directions could be maintained if they are found in the final orders. The undisputed fact is that the agreement between the parties stood terminated since November, 2004 for reasons good or bad as will indubitably be pronounced upon by the learned Tribunal. The impugned Orders are in the nature of a mandatory injunction, which is normally granted in the rarest of cases. It is obvious that the Hon'ble Tribunal is mindful of the rival interests, as it has adjourned the case for the very short period of one month. The 'Balance of Convenience', however, does not lie in altering the status-quo which has already prevailed for over one year. All other considerations would be secondary to this one.

7. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction that the impugned Orders shall be held in abeyance up to 16.1.2006.

8. The learned Tribunal shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by any observations contained herein. 9. Parties to bear their respective costs.