Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2023) 10 TDSAT CK 0001

Sri Sumangali Digital Communication India Pvt Ltd vs Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd

Telecom Disputes Settlement And Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 4 October 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Krishna Gautam, Member
CASE NUMBER
Broadcasting Petition No. 231 Of 2014, 447 Of 2016 With Misc Application No. 147 Of 2014, 373 Of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 371 words
1.

Learned Counsel for both side are present. This Petition was part heard vide order dated 05.04.2018. But after mentioning by Respondent side, that it had filed BP No. 447 of 2016 against present Petitioner of BP No. 231 of 2014, this Tribunal vide order dated 06.04.2018 directed for deciding both these Petitions together. After hearing them at a time, nowhere, these two Petitions were consolidated or directed to be decided, by one and common judgement. Whereas, Court of Registrar, erroneously mentioned in its order that matter is clubbed and tagged together. Rather, there was only direction for hearing together and deciding together. There was no consolidation of these two Petitions. But it has been wrongly pressed by Counsel for Petitioner.

2.

Petition was scheduled for final argument, on today. Repeated opportunities for filing written submission by Petitioner was taken and vide previous order, it was specifically mentioned, that written submission, after exchange with other side by Petitioner, encapsulating the facts, evidence and precedent-ship if any, be filed, in between and today was the date fixed for final arguments. But this was not complied with. Rather, on yesterday, it was mentioned to be permitted to file written submissions. But was directed to be mentioned on today itself and today it is being said that written submission, for and on behalf of Petitioner, is ready. It has been served to other side and is to be filed in the course of the course of the day.

3.

It has been objected by other side that this written submission is a consolidated one for both of the Petitions. Whereas, Respondent was asked to file written submissions, as per facts and matter in dispute in both Petitions separately, because the judgement is to be written separately. Hence, it was filed separately and if the written submission of Petitioner, is being admitted, then an opportunity, be given for rebutting the same.

4.

Written submission by Petitioner, is being accepted on record. However, this is a consolidated written submission in both of the Petitions. Hence, oral argument is to be advanced for both Petitions separately, mentioning the facts involved and arithmetic calculation written therein by both side.

5.

List the matter on 29.11.2023 ‘for final arguments’.