Royal Digital Cable And Communications Pvt Ltd vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

The controversy raised by the petitioner lies within a narrow compass. By an interim order dated 22.3.2021 passed by this Tribunal in B P No.

284 of 2019, the petitioner was required to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs. 35 lakhs within six weeks, half of that was to be paid within four

weeks and balance within further two weeks.

 The said interim order was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court but without any success as is clear from the order

of High Court dated 13.4.2021 (Annexure P-2).

Petitioner expressed financial difficulties and requested the respondent to accept Rs. 7 lakhs immediately and the balance amount in various

instalments as per convenience of the petitioner. The respondent accepted Rs. 7 lakhs only as part payment and insisted that the entire amount of

Rs. 35 lakhs be paid in terms of order of this Tribunal within six weeks.Â

Petitioner was unable to make further payment resulting into a disconnection notice dated 27.4.2021 (Annexure P-6). In that notice delay in

payment of current invoiced amount has also been mentioned.

5 Although this petition is mainly directed against the disconnection notice, learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly submitted that petitioner has

no reservations in paying the current invoices and shall make the payments without unnecessary delay as per the agreement and past practice.

However, he has reiterated financial difficulties of the petitioner and has pleaded for grant of more time to pay the balance of Rs. 35 lakhs out of

which only Rs. 7 lakhs has been paid so far.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the aforesaid plea because, according to him, the High Court has refused to interfere with the

interim order and, therefore, it is binding on the petitioner and there is no good ground even to review the time frame of six weeks granted earlier.Â

Hence, he wants this Tribunal not to interfere with disconnection notice.

Having heard both the learned counsels, this Tribunal finds that the controversy, if any, relates only to prayer for enlargement of the time earlier

fixed for payment Rs. 35 lakhs by the petitioner. Since it is a minor issue and the plea is based only on grounds of equity and difficulties due to

Covid-19, in larger interest of justice with a view to give a chance to the petitioner to continue its business relationship with the respondent, the earlier

time frame is revised in following terms :

(i) Half of Rs. 35 lakhs after excluding Rs. 7 lakhs already paid, must be paid by the petitioner within three days from today. (ii) The remaining

half i.e. Rs. 17.5 lakhs must be paid within a further period of six weeks from today but out of that at least Rs. 9 lakhs should be paid within four

weeks. The balance, thereafter, should be payable within a period of six weeks from today. On this condition the impugned notice of

disconnection is put in abeyance but it shall revive and the respondent shall be at liberty to give effect to that notice in case the revised time schedule

indicated above for payment of Rs. 35 lakhs is not complied with.

It goes without saying that the current dues shall be paid by the petitioner regularly in accordance with the agreement and the prevailing practice.

Nothing of substance remains to be decided in this petition in view of orders passed above which is nothing but an exercise of review of the

interim order of this Tribunal dated 22.3.2021 passed in BP No. 284 of 2019. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

The issue of GST on the amount of Rs. 35 lakh can be raised by the respondent at the time of next hearing of B P No 284 of 2019 if an MA is

filed by the respondent for that purpose.