Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Acn Digital Private Limited vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises ... on 1 December, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 MP-4130-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MP No. 4130 of 2021
(M/S ACN DIGITAL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD.)
Indore, Dated : 01-12-2021
Mr A.K. Sethi, Senior Counsel with Mr Vaibhav Bhagwat and Mr
Himanshu Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
M r Kunal Tondan with Mr Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on admission/interim relief.
01. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution takes
exception to the order dated 22-10-2021 (Annexure-P-9) passed by
Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), New
Delhi whereby the learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay 50% of
the amount of demand within three months in three installments, failing
which it will be open to the respondent to disconnect the connection.
02. Mr A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel urged that the
petitioner submitted an audit report under Regulation 15 (1) of the
Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection
(Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 hereinafter referred as
('Regulations'). The petitioner prepared the audit report under Cluase-1
of Regulation 15, whereas respondent prepared another audit report
under Clause-2 of Regulation 15. Both the Audit Reports are under
consideration before the Tribunal.
03. The Tribunal is yet to determine as to which audit report
will prevail and will be binding on the parties. At interim stage it was
not open to the Tribunal to hold that the subsequent audit report prepared
under Clause-2 of Regulation-15 will prevail. Thus, Tribunal has erred
in passing the impugned order. In the fitness of things, since pleadings are
complete the Tribunal ought to have heard the matter finally. The
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RASHMI
PRASHANT
Date: 2021.12.01 17:44:24 IST
2 MP-4130-2021
impugned order is bad in law because petitioner could make out a prima
facie case. The balance of convenience was also in his favour. If
petitioner is subjected to disconnection, it will cause irreparable loss to
the petitioner. The petitioner has almost 2.5 lacs viewers, who will be
deprived from the benefit of watching the channel. Lastly, learned Senior
Counsel submits that impugned order of the Tribunal amounts to giving
final relief to the respondent.
04. Sounding a contra note, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the impugned order is an interlocutory order whereby
Tribunal has only expressed its prima facie view. The order does not
suffer from any patent illegality on which interference can be made by
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Moreso, when the
Tribunal is an expert Tribunal dealing with the matters relating to the
disputes arising out of said Regulations. The petitioner may deposit the
amount which will save him from disconnection and said deposit of
amount will always remain subject to final out come of the dispute.
05. Parties confined their stand to the extent indicated above.
06. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
07. In catena of judgments, the Apex Court has laid down the
parameters on the anvil of which an interlocutory order can be put to
test. In Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported
i n 2010 (8) SCC 329, the apex court opined that if orders suffers
from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality, interference can be
made. In absence of any manifest procedural impropriety or palpable
perversity, interference is not warranted. Another view is possible is
also not a ground for interference. The High Court in exercise of
power under Article 227 of the Constitution should not act as a Bull
in the China Shop and interfere into the factual aspects.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RASHMI
PRASHANT
Date: 2021.12.01 17:44:24 IST
3 MP-4130-2021
08. If impugned order is tested on the anvil of principles laid
down in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) it will be clear that
the impugned order by no stretch of imagination can be said to be an
order passed by an incompetent Tribunal, no procedural impropriety
or palpable perversity could be pointed out. The Tribunal has prima
facie relied upon the subsequent audit report prepared under Clause-2
of Regulation-15 and this finding, in our opinion, is certainly subject
to final outcome of the matter. This is trite in law that prima facie
findings does not bind the Tribunal while deciding the matter finally.
09. In absence of any ingredients on which interference can be
made, interference is declined.
10. The petition is dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RASHMI
PRASHANT
Date: 2021.12.01 17:44:24 IST
