Ccn Digital India vs Indiacast Media Distribution Pvt Ltd

After hearing learned counsel for the parties on the issue of interim relief, it appears necessary to give sufficient time to the parties to share their

views including the views of the auditor on any issue arising in respect of the audit report dated 6.1.2022. It is too recent a report to be adjudicated so

early without giving opportunity to the parties and the auditor to exchange views. Both the parties shall be at liberty to raise their concerns and

observations and communicate to each other. It is expected that auditor's views shall also be made known to the respondent on the relevant issues.

The dispute between the parties appears to have snow balled on account of petitioner's communication that he now intends to expand his area of

activities and wants to set up his system also at Jalandhar whereas his original system is at Bhatinda. There may be some teething troubles and

issues while expanding or shifting the system but a party cannot be totally denied its right to extend or expand its business without violating the law and

the agreement.

Right to reasonable demands of the respondent must be respected by the petitoner by communicating all the necessary details of his system when he

expands / shifts his business to Jalandhar. The right of the respondent to hold its own audit under clause 15.2 of the relevant Regulations is always

available, if need arises.

Without adversly reflecting on the rights of the parties, the petitioner is held entitled to shift / expand its business but only after giving prior information

of all relevant materials to the respondent. The issue arising out of audit report shall not be treated as a subject matter to the present petition unless

found absolutely necessary. Parties will be at liberty to exercise their rights and raise demands on the basis of audit report independently without

being effected by the present petition.

Till the next date, the respondent shall not give effect to the impugned notice of disconnection.

The Respondent has already filed a preliminary reply and also an application under section 20 of TRAI Act alleging violation of interim order of this

Tribunal expecting the petitioner to run its operation strictly in terms of the agreement between the parties. Petitioner may file reply to the said MA

within four weeks. Rejoinder, if required, may be filed within three weeks thereafter.

The present reply of the respondent has been described only as a preliminary reply. Respondent is given liberty to file further reply, if required, within

four weeks. A comprehensive rejoinder may be filed within three weeks of further reply.

Post the matter under the same head on 24.3.2022.Â