9X Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India on 1 February, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

9X Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India on 1 February, 2019

Author: S. Ravindra Bhat

Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Prateek Jalan

$~56 to 72
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(C) 7982/2013, C.M. APPL.18654/2015 & 300/2016
     9X MEDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS              ..... Petitioners

+    W.P.(C) 7983/2013
     B4U BROADBAND (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS ..... Petitioners

+    W.P.(C) 7984/2013
     TV VISION LIMITED & ORS                        ..... Petitioners

+    W.P.(C) 7985/2013
     SUN TV NETWORKS LIMITED                        ..... Petitioner

+    W.P.(C) 7987/2013
     E 24 GLAMORU LIMITED                           ..... Petitioner

+    W.P.(C) 7988/2013
     PIONEER CHANNEL FACTORY PVT. LTD               ..... Petitioner

+    W.P.(C) 7989/2013, C.M. APPL.4541/2014
     M/S NEWS BRADCASTER ASSOCIATION & ORS..... Petitioners

+    W.P.(C) 276/2014, C.M. APPL.5897/2014
     SARTHAK ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.                ..... Petitioner

+    W.P.(C) 312/2014
     KALAIGNAR TV PVT. LTD.                         ..... Petitioner

+    W.P.(C) 544/2014
     CELEBRITIES MANAGEMENT PVT LTD & ANR...... Petitioners

+    W.P.(C) 1150/2014, C.M. APPL.2408/2014
     M/S. MAA TELEVISION NETWORK LIMITED ..... Petitioner


                                                                 Page 1 of 4
 +   W.P.(C) 2944/2014
    MEDIAWATCH - INDIA (A REGISTERED SOCIETY)
                                            ..... Petitioner

+   W.P.(C) 3804/2014, C.M. APPL.7659/2014
    M/S. NDTV LIFESTYLE LIMITED AND ANR...... Petitioners

+   W.P.(C) 6602/2014
    ODISHA TELEVISION LIMITED         .....        Petitioner
                    versus
    TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
                                            ..... Respondent


+   W.P.(C) 724/2014
    EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED               ..... Petitioner

+   W.P.(C) 739/2014
    RAJ TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED    ..... Petitioner
                     versus
    TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR
                                          ..... Respondents


+   W.P.(C) 4423/2016, C.M. APPL.18495/2016 & 27336/2016
    VIKKI CHOUDHRY AND ANR                        ..... Petitioners
                    versus
    MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING AND ORS
                                                      ..... Respondents
                    Through : Sh. Kunal Tandon, Sh. Shashank
                    Shekhar, Ms. Niti Jain, Sh. Prateek Jain and Sh.
                    Girdhar Singh, Advocates, for petitioner, in Item
                    Nos. 56, 57, 58 and 61.
                    Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Sh. Saransh Gupta and Sh.
                    Mahipal Singh, Advocates, for TRAI, in Item Nos.
                    56 to 71.
                                                                 Page 2 of 4
                    Sh. Abhishek Malhotra and Ms. Niyati Asthana,
                   Advocates, in Item Nos.56, 59 & 60.
                   Ms. Payal Kakra, Sh. Sushant Chaturvedi, Sh.
                   Divyam Dhyani and Ms. Tanya Gupta, Advocates,
                   for interveners in Item Nos. 56 and 72.
                   Sh. Rahul Bhatia and Sh. Veeren Dua Kumar,
                   Advocates, for petitioner, in Item No.62.
                   Sh. G.S. Mani, Sh. Lewis Edward and Sh. R.C.
                   Sharma, Advocates, for petitioner, in Item No.64.
                   Sh. Samir Sagar Vasistha and Sh. Abhishek Pratap
                   Singh, Advocates, for petitioner, in Item No.65.
                   Sh. Balaji Srinivasan and Ms. Garima Jain,
                   Advocates, for petitioner, in Item Nos.66 and 67.
                   Sh. Devank Maheshwari, for Sh. Jasmeet Singh,
                   CGSC, for UOI, in Item No.66.
                   Sh. Vikram Jetly, CGSC, for UOI, in Item No.67.
                   Sh. Maanav Kumar and Ms. Nupur, Advocates, for
                   petitioner, in Item No.67.
                   Sh. Sandeep Mahapatra, Advocate, for petitioner,
                   in Item No.71.
                   Sh. Anil Soni, CGSC, for UOI, in Item No.72.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
               ORDER

% 01.02.2019 Learned counsel for the parties shall file a joint compilation of the documents on record and also ensure that the written submissions

- not exceeding five pages, are filed before the next date of hearing. The Court clarifies that W.P.(C) 7989/2013 shall be treated as the lead matter in respect of the rights of channels/news broadcasters. All counsel appearing for parties with similar grievance (similar to the petitioner in this case) shall collaborate and file joint written note of arguments.

Page 3 of 4

Similarly, 9X Media Pvt. Ltd and Ors. v. TRAI [W.P.(C) 7982/2013] shall be treated as the lead petition for the rights of music broadcasters. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties with identical or similar grievances shall collaborate and ensure that a common written note of arguments of five pages is filed in this matter. The time allotted for arguments of all petitioners shall not exceed two hours. Likewise, the respondents are allowed one hour to make submissions and reply. List on 11.04.2019.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 01, 2019/ajk Page 4 of 4

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders