Gtpl Hathway Ltd vs Kailashben Rakesh Patel (spme0032) And Anr

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 in all these petitions in respect of M.A. Nos. 414 to 426 of 2021 filed

by respondent no. 2 seeking its deletion from the array of respondents.Â

There is no dispute that petitioner, as an MSO, has/had interconnect agreement with respondent no. 1, an affiliated LCO. Respondent no. 2 is

admittedly a rival MSO and has no liability either under any agreement or under the regulations towards the rival MSO, the petitioner. Additionally,

as an MSO, respondent no. 2 has the legal obligation to supply signals to an LCO who approaches for the same and for that respondent no. 2 has

entered in to an agreement with respondent no. 1. In this petition the only difference in material facts is the aforesaid agreement between respondent

no. 1 and respondent no. 2 under which respondent no. 2 is admittedly supplying signals to the LCO, respondent no. 1.

In several other matters where the rival MSO had denied to have entered into an agreement with the LCO, respondent no. 1, prayer for deletion of

respondent no. 2 has been allowed by this Tribunal through large number of orders.  In some of the cases where the respondent no. 2 had not

denied that it is supplying signals to the LCO, this Tribunal considered the legal position creating obligation upon the MSO to supply signals to an LCO

on non- exclusion basis and permitted deletion.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the prayer for deletion mainly on the ground that in this case the prayers are not confined seeking

injunction against respondent no. 2 which may not be granted in view of earlier orders allowing deletion but there are further prayers like directing the

respondent jointly or severally to handover a particular number of STBs along with VCs to the petitioner or to pay the monitory value of the same.

In view of the aforesaid stand of the petitioner, this Tribunal has applied its mind to the pleadings made in the petition and the same clearly discloses

that STBs claimed to be property of the petitioner were given by the petitioner only to respondent no. 1 along with VCs which are technically capable

of decoding or decrypting only the signals sent from the digitally addressable system of the petitioner. This technical aspect is known to the players

in the industry. There is no allegation that respondent no. 2 has taken over the STBs from respondent no. 1 and has made alteration or changes by

use of any technology and using the same very STBs for the purpose of supplying encrypted signals from respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 1. In

absence of such material pleadings, in these petitions also it is clear that respondent no. 2 a rival MSO is being impleaded without any cause of action

which may entitle the petitioner to seek any relief like return of STBs from respondent no. 2.

In view of earlier orders passed in several petitions including order dated 9.11.2021 passed in M.A. No. 76 of 2021 in B.P. No. 107 of 2021 and the

aforesaid discussion the prayer for deletion of respondent no. 2 is allowed. The M.As. are accordingly allowed and disposed of. The petitioner

should file amended memo of parties within three weeks. There is already an order for ex-part hearing against respondent no. 1 in these

petitions.  Â

Let the matter be placed before the Court of Registrar on 2.3.2022 for passing necessary orders and directions to make the petitions ready for early

hearing.  Â