Icos Entertainment vs Zee Turnee Ltd.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2911 Del

21.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+     W.P.(C) 10505/2009

                                       Date of decision: 29th July, 2009


      ICOS ENTERTAINMENT                              ..... Petitioner
                     Through Mr. Vineet Bhagat & Ms. Neha Jain,
                     Advocates.

                    versus

      ZEE TURNEE LTD.                                      ..... Respondent
                          Through Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with
                          Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

      1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?
      2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
      3. Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest ?

                               O R D E R

%

1. The petitioner herein has impugned orders dated 3rd July, 2009 and

15th July, 2009 passed by Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate

Tribunal, New Delhi.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, who is

present on advance notice.

3. By the interim order, the respondent No. 1 has been directed to

W.P. (C) No. 10505/2009 Page 1 continue to supply the feed/signals to the petitioner subject to the

petitioner depositing subscription charges payable on subscriber base of

Rs.15,000/- per month with effect from 19th December, 2008.

4. On the question of subscriber base, the petitioner claims that he has

5460 subscribers whereas the respondent No. 1 claims that signal feed is

being supplied to more than 30000 subscribers. Learned counsel for the

respondent No. 1 states that they are relying upon documents obtained by

them from Star TV that subscriber base of the petitioner is more than

30000. The said document is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner on

the ground that it does not pertain to the petitioner as the petitioner is a

partnership firm and the certificate issued by Star TV relates to DENICOS

Cable Network Private Limited. Learned counsel for the petitioner states

that DENICOS Cable Network Private Limited is a separate company, which

covers a larger area and the petitioner is not associated with them.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, states that the

address mentioned in the invoice or notice issued by Star T.V. is the same

and the petitioner has taken over the said company. Learned counsel for

the petitioner states that the billing raised by Star T.V. against the

petitioner is on a much lower subscriber base. The statements made by

the counsel for the petitioner on the question of the petitioner being a

different entity and on the subscriber base payments to Star T.V. are

disputed.

W.P. (C) No. 10505/2009 Page 2

5. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction is not exercising

appellate powers. The impugned order passed by the tribunal is an

interim order. Learned tribunal has also directed verification of the

subscriber base by a joint survey. In view of the conflicting figures with

regard to the subscriber base, the learned tribunal has taken an in

between figure of 15,000/- for the purpose of interim order. The tribunal

has also directed that payments made by the petitioner are subject to the

outcome of the final decision. In these circumstances, I do not think it will

be appropriate for this Court to fix a different figure of subscriber base and

modify the interim order passed by the tribunal.

6. On the question of the date from which arrears should be payable,

learned tribunal has taken into consideration the interim order passed by

them on 19th December, 2008, whereby operation of public notice dated

3rd November, 2008 was stayed. The said public notice had been issued

by respondent No. 1 for terminating signal feed to the petitioner.

Subsequently, the petition in which the interim order was passed was

disposed of by the order dated 8th May, 2009 directing parties to initiate

settlement/agreement with the condition that the signal feed will not be

disconnected till 30th June, 2009.

7. The parties tried to negotiate a settlement/agreement but failed and

thereupon the petitioner again approached the appellate tribunal. Interim

orders dated 3rd July, 2009 and 15th July, 2009 have been passed in the

W.P. (C) No. 10505/2009 Page 3 said petition. The date 19th December, 2008 fixed by the Appellate

Tribunal in the interim order has basis and is the date on which the first

interim order was passed. I do not think while exercising power of judicial

review in a writ petition this Court should interfere with the interim orders

passed by the tribunal.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that the survey is being

delayed by the respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.

1 assures this Court and states that the respondent No. 1 does not want to

delay the survey and are extending full cooperation but it is the petitioner,

who is not cooperating. It is obvious that both parties have to ensure that

the direction of the tribunal for joint survey is complied with in letter and

spirit.

9. The writ petition is disposed of.

10. It is clarified that observations made in this order are for the

purpose of disposal of the writ petition and this Court has not expressed

any opinion on the merits of the claim of either side.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

          JULY 29, 2009
          VKR




W.P. (C) No. 10505/2009                                                Page 4