Ht Music And Entertainment Co. ... vs Union Of India And Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2344 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 2628/2015
       HT MUSIC AND ENTERTAINMEN T CO. LTD. ..... PETITIONER
                    Through: Ms. Meghna Mishra and Mr. Nakul
                    Sachdeva, Advocates

                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.             ..... RESPONDENT
                     Through: Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
               ORDER

% 19.03.2015

CM No.5067/2015 (clarification and modification of order dated 17.03.2015)

1. This is an application seeking clarification and modification of order dated 17.03.2015. It appears that in paragraph 2 of the order dated 17.03.2015, a typographical error has crept in. Paragraph 2 is accordingly corrected. The corrected version will read as follows :-

"2. Mr. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel says that the migration from FM Phase-II to FM Phase-III is impeded, only on account of the fact that the application filed by the petitioner is not being processed.."

2. That apart, there are two other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner.

2.1 First, that paragraph 6 of the order dated 17.03.2015 needs clarification.

W.P.(C) 2628/2015 page 1 of 2 2.2 Second, that if the said clarification, as sought in the application, is granted then, consequential directions be also issued.

3. In so far as the first contention is concerned, the clarification sought in paragraph 6 is, with respect to the amount that is to be paid, the entity to which the amount is to be paid, and the entity on whose behalf the amount is being paid.

3.1 I have no difficulty in clarifying this part of the order. 3.2 The learned counsel for the non-applicants/respondents has also no objection with regard to the same.

3.3 Accordingly, it is clarified that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.1.85 Crores to BECIL on behalf of respondent no.2; albeit under protest.

4. Which brings me to the second part, which is that, in case respondent no.1 were to deny approval to the petitioner, the amount paid by it to BECIL on behalf of respondent no.2 should be refunded. 4.1 In my view, in case the approval is not granted by respondent no.1 then, the contention that the amount deposited ought to be returned to it, is an issue, which will require examination, if at all, when that situation arises. Needless to say, since the amount is being paid by the petitioner to BECIL, under protest, the necessary logical consequences should follow.

5. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.

6. Dasti.

                                               RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 19, 2015
Yg
W.P.(C) 2628/2015                                            page 2 of 2