Siti Networks Ltd. (Earlier Known As Siti Cable Network Ltd.) vs C And B Cable Network

Dated 30 July, 2026 Broadcasting Petition No. 779 of 2021 With MA No. 429/2022 Siti Networks Ltd. (Earlier Known as Siti Cable Network Ltd.) …Petitioner Vs. C and B Cable Network …Respondent(s)

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER

This application, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, has been moved by Respondent - C and B Cable Network, through Proprietor Nand Kishore Rajani, with a prayer for rejection of Petition, with this contention that the Petition has been filed by Petitioner - Siti Cable Network Pvt. Ltd., for a decree of recovery of outstanding dues, as well as return of STBs, said to be issued because of the agreement, entered in between; whereas, there was a ‘no dues certificate’, dated 02.02.2018, issued by Petitioner Company, in favour of Respondent-applicant, having mention of no dues towards Respondent. Hence, once it was there, then no Petition may be filed for prayed relief. The agreement, being said to be the basis for this Petition, is also a voidable contract and it was against the provisions of Interconnect regulation, narrated in this application. The Petitioner, being in a dominant position, had laid over the consent of Respondent, that is the consent was not ‘free consent’ at all, making this contract voidable. The STBs, along with accessories were sold, and for them, there may not be any occasion of return, or payment in lieu thereof. Hence, this vague Petition with no cause of action. Hence, this application for rejection of plaint, at this primitive stage.

The reply is of reiteration of contention of Petition. The alleged ‘no dues certificate’ has been said to be forged and fictitious document. The same was never issued by Petitioner. The covenant of Interconnect regulations is of ownership of MSO over STBs, and it was never sold, as is being said by Respondent. The very contention, regarding the Interconnect Agreement, is against the fact and law. Hence, the application is to be rejected.

Having heard and gone through, it is apparent that both parties are admitted to be the service provider. The dispute with regard to prayer of a decree for outstanding subscription dues and return of STBs vis-à-vis the payment of the cost in lieu thereof, are the subject matter of a proceeding before this Tribunal, under section 14, read with section 14A, of TRAI Act 1997. The agreement, in between, relationship, in between, the dues, in between, the so called settlement, in between, then after issuing the ‘no dues certificate’, in between, and the purchase of the STBs by Respondent from Petitioner, in between, for the alleged fact said by Respondent are in this application. Hence, all these, requires a decision/ judicial decision making, in the original Petition itself, after giving opportunity to Respondent for filing its reply, then framing of issues, then taking of Evidences of both side. Then hearing argument of both side, and then making a judgement. Hence, there is no ground for rejection of plaint, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at this juncture.

Accordingly, this application stood rejected. ….......……………… (Justice Ram Krishna Gautam) Member 30.07.2026 /NC/