AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned Counsel for both side are present. Learned Counsel for Petitioner is to file his Vakalatnama afresh, because of his new engagement. Though, he is said to be ready for arguments and he started his arguments, but as per order-sheet, the question of maintainability, was directed to be decided along with final hearing of this Petition. Hence, the first question raised by this Tribunal, was with regard to maintainability. Learned Counsel for Petitioner argued that as per Section 14 a (ii), Petitioner is a 'service provider', but the basis of this cause of action, is the Franchisee Agreement, filed at page no. 16, of paper book and the same is an agreement, with an Arbitration clause, between a franchisee and a franchiser.
Hence, the question was raised as to how a dispute had arisen between a MSO and a LCO, or a dispute arisen because of Interconnect Agreement, with regard to Cable Transmission. Rather, it appears to be a dispute arising out of a Franchisee Agreement, the basis of this Petition and as per settled law with regard to documentary evidence, the document is to be read, in between, lines and the words written in it. It cannot be added or subtracted by any oral evidence, unless the same is not being disputed. Hence, this Agreement of Franchisee, is an undisputed document. Hence, whatever is written in it, is to be taken.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner, to argue with regard to above query made by this Tribunal as to how this dispute pertains with transmission and re-transmission of the cable signal network, in between, MSO and LCO, and how it is not a dispute, arising out of Franchisee Agreement, executed between two MSOs.
List the matter ‘for hearing’ on 25.07.2023.