Shiv Cable Vision Vs. Star India Private Limited and

Shiv Cable Vision vs Star India Private Limited and

Type Court Judgment Court SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT Decided Mar 06, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/52420

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/52420
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Judge: N S Hegde, D Sehgal
Decided On: Mar 06, 2006
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shiv Cable Vision

Respondent

Star India Private Limited and

Excerpt

1. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that second respondent has been served dasti, but has refused the service. he says an affidavit in this regard will be filed on 7th march, 2006. let this affidavit be filed as prayed.2. learned counsel for first respondent submits that there is no subsisting agreement between the parties hence without any such agreement, it is not possible for the petitioner to seek signals from the respondent. while petitioner submits that in spite of his client approaching the mso of the first respondent he has refused to sign any subscription agreement.3. therefore, we direct the petitioner to approach the mso of the respondent to enter into a subscription agreement so that the petitioner can get signals of the first respondent. if any mso nominated by the first respondent refuses to sign the agreement then the first respondent shall take steps to see that the petitioner gets the signals either directly or through some other intermediary.

Full Judgment

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that second respondent has been served dasti, but has refused the service. He says an affidavit in this regard will be filed on 7th March, 2006. Let this affidavit be filed as prayed.

2. Learned counsel for first respondent submits that there is no subsisting agreement between the parties hence without any such agreement, it is not possible for the petitioner to seek signals from the respondent. While petitioner submits that in spite of his client approaching the MSO of the first respondent he has refused to sign any subscription agreement.

3. Therefore, we direct the petitioner to approach the MSO of the respondent to enter into a subscription agreement so that the petitioner can get signals of the first respondent. If any MSO nominated by the first respondent refuses to sign the agreement then the first respondent shall take steps to see that the petitioner gets the signals either directly or through some other intermediary.

Same Court & Year SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities App... Same Parties Shiv Cable Vision vs Star India Private Limited and Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge N S Hegde, D Sehgal