M.A. No. 21 of 2016 in Broadcasting Petition No. 499 of 2015. Case: Discovery Communication India Vs All Digital Network India Ltd.. TDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal)

Case NumberM.A. No. 21 of 2016 in Broadcasting Petition No. 499 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Payal Kakra and Ritwik Sneha, Advocates and For Respondents: Manikya Khanna, Advocate
JudgesAftab Alam, J. (Chairperson) and Bipin Bihari Srivastava, Member
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XII Rule 6
Judgement DateJune 02, 2016
CourtTDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal)


Aftab Alam, J. (Chairperson)

  1. M.A No. 21 of 2016 is an application under order 12 rule 6 filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent "to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 67,01,292/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lac One Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Two only) i.e. the amount due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner."

  2. The application is based on two emails from the respondent to the petitioner in which, according to the petitioner, the respondent clearly makes an admission of its dues to the petitioner as claimed and quantified by the petitioner.

  3. The petitioner has filed this petition for recovery of Rs. 67,01,292/- (along with interest pendent lite and future interest @ 18% per annum) as dues of monthly subscription charges for the supply of TV signals to the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the two sides executed an interconnect agreement for the period 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015. In terms of the interconnect agreement, the respondent was liable to pay the monthly subscription fee of Rs. 4,76,000/- for the supply of the petitioner's TV signals to its network. The respondent defaulted in making the monthly payments and as a result the arrears of subscription fee accumulated to the sum as claimed in the recovery potion as on 20.7.2015, the date on which the petitioner discontinued the supply of its signals to the petitioner.

  4. The respondent has filed its reply denying any liability for making payments to the petitioner.

  5. The petitioner then filed the present application under order XII rule 6 claiming a decree for the sum claimed in the main petitioner (Rs. 67,01,292/-) on the basis of emails sent to it by the respondent, which the petitioner construes as an unambiguous admission of its dues against the respondent. The respondent has filed a reply to this application as well in which it has denied all the claims of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed an affidavit enclosing a revised Statement of Account in which its claim is lowered down to Rs. 59,82,891/- which, according to the petitioner, is the amount due as on 30.6.2015. In other respects, the contents of this affidavit reiterate the petitioner's claim made in M.A. No. 21 of 2016. It needs here to be clarified that the slight reduction in the amount of claim appears to have been necessitated on account of some recent decisions of the Tribunal in which it is held that no claim for recovery of dues may be entertained by...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT