advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, February 20, 2015

Insofar as the second suggestion i.e. putting up a scroll to the effect that "the channel displaying the sports event (concerned ICC World Cup 2015 matches) is meant only for Doordarshan" has received our consideration. Acceptance of the said suggestion would be understanding the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 and Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 in a particular manner which is not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. We, therefore, decline to accept the said second suggestion advanced on behalf of the respondents.

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



            Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4572-4573 of 2015



Prasar Bharati                                     ...  Petitioner(s)

                                   Versus

Board of Control for Cricket in India  & Ors.      ...  Respondent(s)

                                    WITH

              SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 4574-4575 of 2015



                                  O R D E R



We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.    It is our considered view that at this stage we ought not to  consider
the submissions made  on  behalf  of  the  parties  on  the  merits  of  the
controversy as the same may have the effect of  prejudicing  either  of  the
parties.

3.    We have considered the  suggestions  put  forward  on  behalf  of  the
respondents.  The first suggestion is  with  regard  to  setting  up  of  an
extra/special channel which has been  contended  by  Prasar  Bharati  to  be
unviable and technically unfeasible within any reasonable  period  of  time.
Though an offer has been  made  on  behalf  of  respondent  No.  4  to  make
available its expertise and personnel to aid the   Prasar  Bharati,  we  are
not inclined to consider the said offer made on behalf of respondent No.  4.
 The first suggestion put forward therefore does not merit acceptance.

4.    Insofar as the second suggestion i.e.  putting  up  a  scroll  to  the
effect that "the channel displaying the sports event  (concerned  ICC  World
Cup  2015  matches)  is  meant  only  for  Doordarshan"  has  received   our
consideration.  Acceptance of the said  suggestion  would  be  understanding
the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports  Broadcasting  Signals  (Mandatory
Sharing  with  Prasar  Bharati)  Act,  2007  and  Section  8  of  the  Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 in a particular manner  which  is
not warranted at this stage of the proceedings.  We, therefore,  decline  to
accept the said second suggestion advanced on behalf of the respondents.

5.    In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view  that  the  interim
order passed earlier to the effect that the impugned order dated  04.02.2015
of the High Court shall  remain  suspended  should  continue  until  further
orders.  We order accordingly.  However, in view of the  importance  of  the
matter, we direct that the special leave petitions  be  heard  at  an  early
date.  List on a Tuesday in the  month  of  July,  2015.   The  parties  may
exchange pleadings, if required, in the meantime.



                                     .....................................J.
                                              [RANJAN GOGOI]




                                     .....................................J.
                                              [PRAFULLA C. PANT]
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 20, 2015.




No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.