ASIANET SATELITE COMMUNICATION LTD Vs. P KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a Cable T.V. Operator having subscribers throughout the State. The third respondent is its franchisee. It is claimed that the petitioner has established its cable T.V. network throughout the State by drawing cables through the electric posts owned by the Kerala State Electricity Board after having executed agreements with them. The third respondent is a Cable T.V. Operator at Manjeri. The petitioner and the third respondent entered into franchisee agreement, by which the right to distribute programmes was given to the third respondent under certain conditions. The complaint is that the third respondent in violation of the franchisee agreement was not paying the amount due to the petitioner and that compelled the petitioner to directly seek payment from the subscribers.

(2.) THEN, according to the petitioner at the behest of the third respondent, the first and second respondents representing all the cable T.V. subscribers at Manjeri Muncipality instituted O.S. 194 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Manjeri for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting or dismantling or in any way interfering the Cable T.V. connections claimed to be given by the third respondent until the dispute regarding the collection of the subscription for the connection is finally resolved by a court or authority competent to resolve the same. Along with the suit, the plaintiff instituted I.A. 883 of 2010 praying for a temporary relief. It is pointed out that the petitioner has entered appearance in the said suit and filed its written statement. It also filed objections to the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. However, by order dated 14.9.2010 the trial court granted injunction as payed for against the petitioner and the third respondent. Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit carried the matter in appeal as C.M.A. 22 of 2010 before the District Court, Manjeri. The District Court, by its order confirmed the order of the trial court and directed disposal of the suit. The aggrieved second defendant before the trial court has come up before this court challenging Exts.P7 and P11 interlocutory orders.

(3.) WHATEVER that be, the question now arises for consideration is whether any interference is called for with the orders of the court below. Ext.P1 is the franchisee agreement which provides for various things. One of the contentions taken by the petitioner is that the agreement was entered into on 1.9.2000 and it was for a period of ten years. Therefore the period expired on 31.8.2010. Thereafter the first defendant franchisee has no authority to collect subscriptions from the subscribers. The other complaint raised was that huge amounts were due from the franchisee as per the agreement and the franchisee was not honouring the terms of the agreement at all. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, whatever that be, after the expiry of the period made mention of in Ext.P1, the agreement has not been extended for further period and therefore the first defendant cannot collect any amount from the subscribers and the courts below were not justified in not allowing to continue to collect the subscription.