Siti Networks Ltd vs Gupta Cable Network And Ors

Heard Mr.  Aishwarya Choudhary, Advocate who has appeared online as an exception which is permitted for today.  He submits that the reply filed earlier through Mr. Jayant Pawar on behalf of respondent no. 1 in B.P. No. 147 of 2021 should be treated as reply of respondent no. 1 as he does not want to file any further reply.  Petitioner prays for, and is granted, four weeks’ further time for filing rejoinder.

Heard learned counsel for respondent no. 3/applicant and learned counsel for petitioner/non-applicant in respect of M.A. Nos. 466 to 472 of 2021 filed in all the petitions to seek deletion from the array of respondents.  From the submissions it appears that respondent. 3 along with respondent no.2, have been arrayed as respondents because they are rival MSOs of the petitioner.  Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that in the facts of the case, respondent no. 3 is neither a necessary nor a proper party.  She has relied upon previous orders of this Tribunal including order dated 9.11.2021 passed in M.A. 76 of 2021 arising out of B.P. No. 107 of 2021.  Since the facts and the submissions are materially the same, there is no good reason not to follow the earlier orders.  The prayer for deletion of respondent no. 3 is allowed.  The M.As. are accordingly allowed and disposed of.  Amended Memo of Parties should be filed by the petitioner within three weeks.

Post the matter under the same head on 6.4.2022.