- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 17 August 2020
- Bench
- Navin Chawla
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 4877/2020
Judgment
NAVIN CHAWLA, J August 17, 2020/Arya
Case details
Parties and counsel
Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserved: 04.08.2020 Date of Decision: 17.08.2020 + W.P.(C) 4877/2020 & CM No. 17601/2020 (Stay) WELWORTH SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED .... Petitioner Through Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rajshekhar Rao, Mr.Sharath Sampath, Mr.Manikya Khanna, Mr.Pratyaksh Sharma, Advs. versus SUN DISTRIBUTION SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Abhishek Malhotra, Ms.Shilpa Gamnani, Ms.Atmaja Tripathy, Advs. for R-1. Mr.Jayant Pawar, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.07.2020 passed by the learned Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Broadcasting Petition No.221/2020, titled SUN Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. v. E-Infrastructure & Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., and Broadcasting Petition No.287/2020, titled Page 2 Welworth Software Pvt. Ltd. v. SUN Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd., directing the petitioner and the respondent no.2 herein to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.22.20 crores to the respondent no.1 herein within one month from the date of passing of the said order, failing which the respondent no.1 has been held entitled to take legal steps for recovery of the said amount by filing appropriate application before the learned Tribunal, including application for disobedience of the said order. 2. The respondent no.1 is the broadcaster of TV Channels while the petitioner and the respondent no.2 are the Multi System Operators providing cable TV services to the local cable operators and the subscribers in the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. 3. The respondent no.1 filed a petition under Section 14 read with Section 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") before the learned Tribunal being Broadcasting Petition No.221/2020 against the petitioner and the respondent no.2 inter-alia making the following prayers: "a. Pass a decree for an amount of INR 32,03,44,059 /- (Rupees Thirty Two Crores Three Lacs Forty Four Thousand Fifty Nine Only) payable as of May 30, 2020, in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondent No. 1 along with interest thereon @18% per annum calculated from date of accrual till date of receipt of payment; AND b. Restrain Respondent No.1 from alienating /migrating its customers/network to any other third-party MSO/DPO/network, including but not limited to that of Page 3 Respondent No.2, without prior clearance of the dues of the Petitioner; AND c. Restrain Respondent No.2 from taking over or migrating to itself, the subscribers and/ or the network of Respondent No.1." 4. In the petition, the respondent no.1 asserted inter-alia as under: "23. Owing to Respondent No. 1's illegal repudiation of its liability, the Petitioner is under an apprehension that Respondent No. 1 is likely to alienate or migrate the customers of its network to some other network, mainly that of Respondent No. 2. This belief is fortified by the following facts: i. Both the Respondents share common control, since Mr. P Kailasam, is not only Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No. 2 company, but is also the Chief Advisory Officer (CAO) of Respondent No. 1. Copies of the communique dated May 7, 2020 from Respondent No. 1' s Board vesting all managerial powers in Mr. Kailasam as well as the Board Resolution dated June 21, 2019 appointing Mr. Kailasam as CEO of Respondent No. 2 are attached herewith and marked as Annexure P-13 (Colly).; ii. Respondent No. 1 has, in April 2020, shifted the address where the CAS & SMS for its network is located, which address of coincides with that of Respondent No. 2. This is evident from a bare perusal of the letter dated April 23, 2020 addressed by Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner, wherein Respondent No. 1 has set out the new location of its CAS and SMS, which is identica
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.