Kerala High Court
Seven Star Information Technology vs Union Of India
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 15TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 28175 of 2017
PETITIONER(S):
1 SEVEN STAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
BUSINESS ASSOCIATION FORUM,
OFFICE AT VETTIKAPALLEY PURAYIDAM,
PALACE WARD, ALAPPUZHA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY SHAHEENKHAN.
2 KAMARUDDIN, TREASURER,
SEVEN STAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
BUSINESS ASSOCIATE FORUM,
VETTIKAPALLEY PURAYIDAM,
PALACE WARD, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV.SRI.B.PRAMOD
RESPONDENT(S):
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING,
A WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. THE TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
MAHANAGAR DOORSANCHAR BHAWAN (NEXT TO
ZAKIR HUSSAIN COLLEGE), JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG
(OLD MINTO ROAD), NEW DELHI- 110002.
3. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER,
DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA, PIN:690101.
4. DEN NETWORKS LIMITED,
IST FLOOR, DR.KOSHYS ARCADE, EDAPPILLY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN:682024.
5. M/S. ALLEPPEY TELEVISION NETWORK
MATHANPALLY MINI COMPLEX, KALLUPALAM,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN:688 011,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
6. SEVEN STAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT.LTD,
SS PALACE, BUILDING NO.XXVI PUBLIC, 1279A,
PALACE WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN:690101,
REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, ALAPPUZHA.
-2-
-2-
WP(C).No. 28175 of 2017 (V)
7. ZIYAD, S/O KOYA, VIP COMPOUND,
VALIYAKULAM WARD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN:688 002.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL
R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.JAYABAL MENON
SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE
BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU
SRI.A.KEVIN THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 05-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 28175 of 2017 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE IP NO.6/2009 BEFORE THE SUB
COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.9.2014 IN IA NO.1312/2011
IN IP NO.6/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE
2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4A: THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SHOWING THE SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES DUE
FROM 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
===========================================
W.P.(C). No. 28175 of 2017(V)
=====================================================
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are stated to be an association of collection agents appointed by the 6th respondent. In the writ petition, it is their case that the signals transmitted to various consumers, from whom they collect the subscription charges on behalf of the 6th respondent, were being provided to the 6th respondent by the 4th respondent Multi- Service Operator (MSO), who in turn used to receive the signals from the broadcasters of the signals. It would appear that, at the instance of certain creditors of one Rafeeq, who was running the business of the 6th respondent, an Official Receiver came to be appointed in Insolvency Proceedings, to run the business of the 6th respondent. It is not in dispute that the business of the 6 th respondent is now run by the Official Receiver (the 3rd respondent herein) pursuant to the directions of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. It is the case of the petitioners herein that, in connection with the services provided by the 4th respondent to the 6th respondent, the necessary charges, that were due to the 4th respondent, had already been collected by the petitioners and remitted to the 3rd respondent, who is carrying on the business of the 6 th respondent pursuant to the directions in the insolvency petition. It is stated that, probably on account of the 3rd respondent not effecting the payments due to the 4th respondent within time, the 4th respondent took steps to stop transmitting the signals to the 6 th respondent for onward transmission to the consumers. It was this action on the part of the 4 th respondent that prompted the petitioners to approach this Court seeking a direction to the 3 rd -2- W.P.(C). No. 28175 of 2017(V) respondent to ensure that the 4th respondent continues to broadcast/provide cable TV signals to the 6th respondent and, further, that the functioning of the business of the 6th respondent is not stopped or disrupted in any manner. There is a further prayer for a direction to the 3rd respondent to pay arrears of subscription charges due to the 4 th respondent or to reach an agreement with the 4 th respondent regarding payment of arrears of subscription charges.
2. When the matter came up for admission, this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, also directed that status-quo as on 29.08.2017 shall be maintained. As a result of the status-quo order, the 4 th respondent is now obliged to continue to provide cable TV signals to the 6 th respondent for the benefit of the customers of the latter.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 3 rd respondent Official Receiver, who represents the 3 rd and 6th respondents in the writ petition as also the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the 3rd and 6th respondent would submit that the payments due to various creditors, and the obligation to run the business of the 6 th respondent for the benefit of the creditors, has to be done strictly in accordance with the directions of the Sub Court in the insolvency petition. It is pointed out that, in the absence of any material to suggest that the 4th respondent should be preferred over the other creditors in the matter of priority of payments from out of the assets of the 6 th respondent, the petitioner cannot insist on the 3rd respondent effecting payments to the 4th respondent, before discharging the liability of the other creditors. The learned -3- W.P.(C). No. 28175 of 2017(V) counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that, it is under no obligation to continue to provide signals to the 6th respondent without being paid for the services already rendered, and inasmuch as no payment has been received either from the 6 th respondent or from the 3rd respondent, it cannot be forced to provide services of transmission of signals to the 6th respondent.
5. I find force in the said contention of the learned counsel for the 3 rd, 4th and 6th respondents, especially in view of the fact that the grievance of the petitioners is essentially against the apprehension of non transmission of signals by the 4 th respondent to the 6th respondent. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any discontinuance of service by the 4th respondent, then it is for them to initiate appropriate legal proceedings, if permissible in law, against the said respondents. The petitioners cannot, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek a direction to the 3rd respondent to effect payments to the 4th respondent on behalf of the petitioners, more so when the 4th respondent is admittedly not a creditor at whose instance, the insolvency petitions were lodged before the Sub Court, Alappuzha. I am therefore, of the view, that the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition, therefore, fails, and is accordingly dismissed. I make it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of any other appropriate legal action being initiated by the petitioners for ensuring the continued transmission of signals by the 4th respondent.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das/05.01.2018