Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.50 seconds)Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
17. The Tribunal is invested with the power to adjudicate disputes, as an exclusive quasi judicial body. It has gathered some institutional expertise; indeed its membership is also geared to facilitate the specialized dispute adjudication which it has to engage in. Judicial review, under Article 226, has to be understood within the overall structural parameters of its original dispute resolving task. If one keeps in mind the circumstance that the impugned order is an interim one, the jurisdiction of this Court gets even more circumscribed, as it were. Commenting on such restricted jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held, in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai as follows:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 8 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Star India Private Limited vs Indus Ind Media And Communications ... on 3 September, 2003
He relied upon the decision in Star India case and submitted that the regulations were interpreted to mean that there is a 'must provide' obligation on the part of the broadcaster; he cannot withhold it on unreasonable grounds. Counsel relied on Regulation 3.2 of the Interconnection Regulations. It was urged that the decision of the Supreme Court was in the context of the pre-existing regulations, when broadcasting was not covered under the TRAI regime. It was lastly urged that all the relevant facts were with the TDSAT, when it decided as it did, to direct an interim measure; it did so within the bounds of its jurisdiction, and this Court should not interfere with such interim orders, made in exercise of discretion rightly vesting with an expert tribunal.
Star India (P) Ltd vs Siti Cable Network Ltd. & Ors on 9 September, 2003
11. Learned Counsel relied upon the orders of the TDSAT, in International Cable TV Network Stanley Edward Benjamin Pallana v. SET Discovery (P) Ltd. (Petition No. 37 of 2004, decided on 10-2-2006); Star India Ltd. v. Indus Ind Media and Communication Ltd. (Petition No. 44 of 2004, decided on 17-1-2006); the decision of the Supreme Court in Star India (P) Ltd. v. LGM Network (decided on 29-3-2006, in CA 4265-66/2003) and the judgment of this Court, in Star India (P) Ltd. v. Shankskardhani Cable Networld (WP No. 23663/2005, decided on 16th December, 2005), to say that the tribunal should not have disturbed the existing distribution system, and dictated an interim order assisted contract between the parties.
1