AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was an error in the narration of the respondent as well in the memo of Broadcasting Petition No. 631 of 2021 and therefore, for amendment of the memo of the petition, this MA No. 168 of 2022 has been preferred.
Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there were three agreements with the respondents especially Rukmani Dutta and Sunil Dutta and therefore an error has been committed by the petitioner in drafting of BP No. 631 of 2021. In fact there was more than one agreement with the respondents who are running their business in the same names Dutta World Video Vision who are proprietors are sometimes Rukmani Dutta and sometimes Sunil Dutta.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the amendment in the memo of BP No. 631 of 2021 as well as certain paragraphs of the memo of petition as stated in the M.A No. 168 of 2022. The MA No. 168 of 2022 is hereby allowed. Amended memo of BP No. 631 of 2021 as well as amended memo of parties shall be filed within a period of one week from today.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner insisted for a fresh restrained order in the light of amended respondents. Issue fresh notice upon respondents as per amended memo of BP No. 631 of 2021. Email and dasti in addition. Rule is made returnable within five weeks.
Post the matter under the head “for directions” on 27.4.2022.
Considering the nature of petitioner’s grievance that respondent no. 1 (as per amended petition) an LCO is migrating against the terms of the agreement and the relevant rules, for the present, respondent no. 1 is directed not to do so without showing any due compliance with the relevant provisions in agreement and regulations.