Siti Networks Ltd vs Ashutosh Cable Network And Anr

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels representing respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 in some of the matters. Mr. Nasir

Husain seeks permission to file Vakalatnama on behalf of Hathway which has been impleaded as respondent no. 2 in B.P. Nos. 363, 364 and 370 of

2021. He may file Vakaltnama and appropriate reply/application within four weeks.

As prayed on behalf of the petitioner let fresh notice be issued on respondent no. 1 in B.P. Nos. 370 and 371 of 2021, dasti and email in addition.Â

Affidavit of service should be filed within four weeks.

Mr Vibhav Srivastava appearing for respondent no. 2 in some of the matters has pressed M.A. Nos. 342, 215, 216, 382, 385, 387, 240, and 242 of

2021 in B.P. Nos. 347, 355, 356, 358, 360, 371, 373 and 376 of 2021 respectively. The prayer in the M.As. is to delete respondent no. 2, a

competing MSO on the ground that it is not a necessary or proper party in view of nature of relief sought against respondent no. 1, the LCO. In

support of his submissions he has placed reliance upon various orders passed in similar petitions including order dated 9.11.2021 passed in M.A. No.

76 of 2021 in B.P. No. 107 of 2021. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vibhav Srivastava it appears that the material facts and

submissions are similar and hence following the earlier orders the prayer for deletion is allowed. The M.As. are accordingly allowed and disposed

of. Learned counsel for the petitioner should file amended memo of parties within three weeks.

In some of the petitions such as B.P. Nos. 363 and 374 of 2021 Mr. Vibhav Srivastava has filed reply on behalf of competing MSO arrayed as

respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 2 respectively. He has raised the issue of wrong impleadment and hence he prays that the issue of wrong

impleadment alleged in the reply should be decided at an early date. Against the stand in the aforesaid replies, petitioner may file rejoinder/short

rejoinder, if required by the next date.

On behalf of respondent no. 1 in B.P. No. 374 of 2021 a prayer has been made for further time to file reply. Four weeks further time is granted but

by way of last opportunity. Further opportunity shall be granted only on appropriate costs.

Against the replies already filed, petitioner may file rejoinder before the next date. In respect of non-appearing respondents, learned counsel for the

petitioner presses for an order for ex-parte hearing. It has further been submitted that notices were served on the non-appearing respondents

between May and June, 2021 and in spite of ample opportunity, they have avoided to appear. Considering the aforesaid facts, the matters in which

fresh notice has not been ordered on non-appearing respondents, further proceeding shall continue ex-parte against the non-appearing respondents if

they do not appear by the next date.

Post the matter under the same head on 8.3.2022.    Â