Petition Nos. 456(C) of 2014, 457(C) of 2014, 458 (C) of 2014 and 459 (C) of 2014. Case: Vaji Digital Network Vs Eenadu Television Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.. TDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Petition Nos. 456(C) of 2014, 457(C) of 2014, 458 (C) of 2014 and 459 (C) of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Advocate and For Respondents: Balaji Subrahmanyam, Vaishnavi Subrahmanyam, Advocates and Prabhat Ranjan, A.R. |
| Judges | Aftab Alam, J. (Chairperson) and Kuldip Singh, Member |
| Issue | Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 63(1) |
| Judgement Date | May 29, 2015 |
| Court | TDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
-
The petitioner; Vaji Digital Network (Vaji), is a new entrant in the broadcasting sector as a multi-system operator in the area of Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh which is non-DAS area. It filed these four petitions against four different broadcasters seeking their signals for retransmission in Rajahmundry.
-
The petitions were filed on 14 October 2014 and came up before the Tribunal on 15 October 2014. On that date, the parties were referred to the Tribunal's Mediation Centre to try to resolve their disputes through mediation. The mediation remained unsuccessful and the matter came back before us on 1 December 2014 when the respondents-broadcasters were directed to file their respective replies.
-
At this stage, it needs to be noted that the petitioner is a partnership firm and at the time of filing of these petitions, Mr. G. Srinivasa Rao and Mr. N. Ramanuja also happened to be partners in the firm.
-
In the replies filed on behalf of the respondents, an objection was taken that G. Srinivasa Rao and M. Ramanuja Verma were also partners in a firm operating as an MSO in the area of Visakhapatnam in the name of Vaji Communications and each of the respondents-broadcasters claimed to have large amounts as dues against Vaji Communications in Vijayawada. It then appeared that the primary objection of the respondents against supply of signals to the petitioner was based on the fact that the aforesaid two persons were the partners in the two firms. In light of the objection taken by the respondents, the petitioner took steps to reconstitute the partnership. The aforesaid G. Srinivasa Rao and M. Ramanuja Verma were retired from the petitioner firm and on 23 March 2015, Mr. Vadivelu Deenadayalan, counsel for the petitioner produced: (i) two deeds of retirement (from the petitioner partnership firm) executed by G. Srinivasa Rao and M. Ramanuja Verma, (ii) the amended deed of partnership, that no longer includes the aforesaid two persons in the firm and (iii) notices regarding reconstitution of the firm issued under section 63(1) of the Indian Partnership Act.
-
This was, however, not the end of the troubles for the petitioner. The respondents now raised objections in regard to the SLR submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted a list of 1152 subscribers. The respondents wanted to verify the correctness of the subscriber list submitted by the petitioner. Besides, it was contended that catering to such a small subscriber base will...
To continue reading
Request your trial