Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

D.NET MALAYALAM DIGITALS PVT. LTD. versus ASIANET SATELITTE COMMUNICATIONS PVT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


D.NET MALAYALAM DIGITALS PVT. LTD. v. ASIANET SATELITTE COMMUNICATIONS PVT - Arb A No. 40 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 243 (4 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Arb A No. 40 of 2006()

1. D.NET MALAYALAM DIGITALS PVT. LTD.,
... Petitioner

2. MR. V.N.SANTHOSH,

Vs

1. ASIANET SATELITTE COMMUNICATIONS PVT.
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)

For Respondent :SRI.V.GIRI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :04/01/2007

O R D E R

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & M.N.KRISHNAN, JJ.

ARBA.No.40 OF 2006

Dated this the 4th day of January, 2007



J U D G M E N T

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

Arbitration appeal has been preferred by the respondents in O.P.(Arbitration)No.440/2005 of District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The District Court allowed the application filed by the respondent herein granting an interim injunction restraining the respondents from collecting subscription charges from the subscribers who are receiving T.V.Signals from the Cable Net Work of the petitioner. The respondents are also restrained by an order of injunction from interfering with the net work of the petitioner, from reconnecting the connections disconnected by the petitioner and from causing any obstruction to the petitioner to maintain and run its net work and collection of subscription charges from its subscribers till the disputes between the parties are resolved in Arbitral Proceedings. Admittedly, parties are governed by Annexure A1 agreement date 27th July 2000. Clause II of the agreement says that the agreement shall be in force for a period of five years and extendable for a further period of five years and can be renewed on mutually agreed ARBA.No.40/2006 :2: terms and conditions thereafter. Arbitration Clause 20 of the Annexure A1 agreement says that any dispute arising out of this agreement shall be referred for Arbitration as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We are informed that a retired judge of this court has already been approached as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute. We do not find no reason to examine the various contentions raised by the appellant as well as the respondent since dispute has already been referred to arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We find no error in the interim arrangement made by the District Court. Accordingly, the arbitration appeal is dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case.

(K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

(M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE)

ps


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.