Naagadurga Cable Network vs Noida Software Technology Park Limited

Learned counsel for both side are present.

Heard over application moved under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC by Petitioner for restoring Broadcasting Petition at its own number 66 of 2017. The reason for absence has been said on oath to be traffic jam and request to counsel for other side for apprising this fact before this Tribunal. Whereas learned counsel for Respondent has vehemently opposed with this contention that on previous date too, none was for Petitioner. Whereas official liquidator for Respondent company was present and on the next date, when it happened, so the petition was dismissed on the ground of repeated absence of petitioner on the date of ‘final hearing’.

Though contention of Respondent appears to be substantiated by the order-sheet and even after sufficient service of notice in utter precaution to the counsel for Petitioner, he failed to appear in two consecutive dates. Once the petition was dismissed, the appearance was instant. However, a written counter is not to be filed by the cousel for Respondent. The objection is with regard to the payment of cost only.

Adjudication after providing opportunity for appearing to both side, is a mandate of principle of Natural Justice and the same has been given, to be observed by this Tribunal, for adjudication under TRAI Act 1997. Considering rival submissions, it seems to be natural for restoring this Petition, but on a payment of cost of Rs. 2000/-.

Miscellaneous Application is being allowed on payment of cost Rs. 2000/- by Petitioner to counsel for Official Liquidator.

Office to restore this Broadcasting Petition at its original number and then after, list 'for final hearing' along with previous record on 24.05.2023.