//
you're reading...
legal issues

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.

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,664,115 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,845 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com