w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Solan Sat TV v/s Star Den Media Services Pvt & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- SAT INDIA LTD. [Active] CIN = U30007WB1994PLC066120

Company & Directors' Information:- G L MEDIA SERVICES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22110AS1992PLC003745

Company & Directors' Information:- C-STAR MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92111TG2000PTC034196

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA STAR PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74300MH2001PTC132605

Company & Directors' Information:- C P MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921DL1997PTC089994

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200WB2000PTC162796

Company & Directors' Information:- STAR E-SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202DL2005PTC139998

Company & Directors' Information:- DEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U73100MH2000PTC128523

Company & Directors' Information:- STAR INDIA SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80301TG2000PLC034288

Company & Directors' Information:- E-MEDIA SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200TN2007PTC065700

Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22300DL2010PTC199575

Company & Directors' Information:- C R MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999WB2011PTC161444

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC069853

    Petition No.258(C), 259, 260 of 2011

    Decided On, 25 July 2011

    At, Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal New Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA
    By, CHAIRPERSON
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. G.D. GAIHA
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. P.K. RASTOGI
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Ms. Neha Jain, Advocates. For the Respondent: (Star Den) Mr. Gopal Jain, Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Mr. Arjun Nataranajan, Ms. Garima Sharma, Advocate Mr. A.C. Mishra, Mr. Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Mr. Navin Chawla, Transmission) Mr. Sharath Sampath, Mr. Tushar Singh, Advocates.



Judgment Text

G. D. GAIHA

The petitioner in these petitions has inter alia prayed for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent no.2 in each of these petitions.

2. Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd. from transmitting the signals of the broadcasters, who have been arrayed as respondent no.2 in each of them matters.

3. Indisputably respondent no.2 has not entered into any agreement with the broadcasters for the purpose of retransmission of the signals of their channels.

4. The petitioner, however, contends that despite the fact that respondent no.2 in law is not entitled to carry on any business as a Multi Service Operator, it has been supplying signals of the channels of the broadcasters.

5. The respondent no.2, however, contends that it had not been retransmitting signals of the broadcasters, and thus, has not resorted to any act of piracy. The petitioner has produced a CD before us to show that indeed the said respondent had been committing the acts of piracy.

6. The respective submissions of the learned counsel have been noticed by us in our order dated 30.5.2011. The matter was heard on 3.6.2011.

7. Thereafter, an additional CD has also been produced. The said CD has been seen. We find that in one of the CDs, there is only a running view of one of the market places which does not even indicate the City in which the market is located. In another CD also, we find a view of market place again, which indicates the place ‘Shimla’ in one of the sign boards. However, we do not find any indication as to how these CD’s are to prove the showing the signals of the Respondent No.2, i.e. Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd, as also the signals of the Star Den Media Services also through Respondent No.2 in the network of the petitioner to the residents of Shimla. These CDs, therefore, do not go to prove anything in regard to piracy of the signals by Respondent No.2 in the area of the petitioner.

8. We, therefore, are not in a position to confirm the contention of the petitioner that the Respondent No.2 is unauthorisedly transmitting signals in the area of the petitioner without signing legitimate agreements various broadcasters who are Respondent No.1 in these petitions. The allegation of the petitioner against the Respondent No.2 that it has indulged in an act of

piracy, therefore is not supported by these CDs. The production of these CDs before us by filing an additional affidavit is a sheer waste of time and we, therefore, deprecate such tendency of filing CDs without proving any substantial facts or supplementing the contentions of the petitioner.

9. Keeping in view the observations made in the accompanying order as also in view of the fact that the respondents categorically deny and dispute commission of any act of piracy, it is not possible to arrive at a firm conclusion that the petitioner has committed acts of piracy.

10. It is, however, not denied or disputed that the respondent no.2 cannot in law without entering into any agreement with the broadcasters cannot retransmit signals of their channels.

11. In view of the fact that no such agreement has been entered into, the question of the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

respondent’s no.2 being entitled to do so does not arise. 12. In that view of the matter, interest of justice would be sub-served if the interim prayers made by the petitioner is disposed of with an observation that the respondent no.2 would not retransmit the signals of the channels of the broadcasters without entering into agreements with them.
O R