9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal ('TDSAT') declining the Petitioner's prayer for an ad-interim injunction in Petition No. 422(C) of 2010. 2. The Petitioner is a broadcaster within the meaning of the provisions of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Order, 2004. It entered into an agreement (`Term Sheet') for carriage of the channels of the Respondent No. 2 New Delhi Television Ltd. (`NDTV') on 1st April 2005. By amendments made to the said agreement, the Petitioner agreed to perform its obligations for a fixed fee. 3. Anticipating the termination of the Agreement (Term Sheet), the Petitioner on 10th December 2010 filed the aforementioned petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... butor of NDTV Channels and to return all material belonging to NDTV that may be in your possession. You are also called upon to make the payment of all sums due and owed to NDTV till the date termination of the Agreement." 5. By the impugned order, the TDSAT declined the prayer for ad-interim relief. It held that a combined reading of Sections 14(1)(a) and (c) and Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (`SRA') revealed that no ad interim mandatory injunction would be granted when the aggrieved party could be sufficiently compensated in terms of money. The TDSAT held that the Petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of an ad-interim mandatory injunction. It was further held that the validity and illegality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not exist and, therefore, the termination itself was illegal. It was submitted that Section 14(1)(d) SRA could not fetter the discretion of the Court. Mr. Lekhi sought to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service (1991) 1 SCC 533 and the earlier judgment of this Court in MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd. v. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 2010 VII AD (Delhi) 45 which affirmed an order dated 27th July 2010 passed by the TDSAT declining ad-interim mandatory injunction in similar circumstances. Mr. Lekhi pointed out that unlike in the said case, here it was a principal-to-principal agreement and, therefore, there was no question of any agency being involved. Mr. Lekhi relied upon the judgment in C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uffered by the Petitioner on account of the alleged breach of its agreement by NDTV can certainly be quantified. Section 41(e) places a further fetter on the Court in granting injunction to prevent a breach of contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced. 9. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service is clear that even where the termination of a contract is illegal, the only relief that can be granted is by way of damages and not continuation of the contract by an interim mandatory injunction. 10. This Court has not been shown any Indian precedent where, in similar circumstances, the continuance of contract has been ordered at the interim stage. The order dated 8th Dece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
