Prime Channel and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Prime Channel and anr. vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Aug 28, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/674357

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/674357
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: S.Saghir Ahmed and; K.T. Thomas, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 28, 1998
Case Number: IA No. ... in Civil Appeal No. 16833 of 1996
Subject: Commercial

Case Summary

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

- CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 2(2): [Dr. Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia, JJ] Decree - Held, Order allowing withdrawal of suit, without liberty to file fresh suit, without any adjudication does not constitute decree. It cannot debar defendants from taking defence in second round of litigat...

Key legal issue: Commercial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prime Channel and anr.

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Advocate Maninder Singh, S.K. Dwivedi and ; S. Wasim A. Quadri, Advs.;

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)10SCC606

Excerpt

- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 2(2): [dr. arijit pasayat & s.h. kapadia, jj] decree - held, order allowing withdrawal of suit, without liberty to file fresh suit, without any adjudication does not constitute decree. it cannot debar defendants from taking defence in second round of litigation. -- order 23, rule 1(4) & section 2(2): effect of withdrawal of suit held, order allowing withdrawal of suit, without liberty to file fresh suit, without any adjudication does not constitute decree. it cannot debar defendants from taking defence in second round of litigation. - namah shivay enterprises in consideration of a variety of factors which they are in a better position to take into account.order1. in this application by m/s. namah shivay enterprises, the prayer is that the slot allotted to them at present, i.e. 9.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on every monday must continue to be allotted for the extended episodes also, as doordarshan agreed to have the extension of the serial for another 56 episodes more. this is seriously opposed by the original appellant prime channel, on the ground that they were asked to wait till the completion of the initially agreed 91 episodes. as for the intervenor, the contention is that, monday being an auspicious day for shiva worshippers, it would be more appropriate that the extended episodes are screened on monday and not on tuesday. on the other hand, it is represented on behalf of the original appellant that there are many other considerations for their serial to be screened on monday itself.2. we do not think that it is for the court to decide as to which day should be allolted to one serial or the other. we leave it to doordarshan to fix up the day or the slot regarding the extended episodes for m/s. namah shivay enterprises in consideration of a variety of factors which they are in a better position to take into account. they can also explore the possibility whether other times can be allotted, if not on all mondays, at least on alternate mondays. this is only a suggestion and it is for doordarshan to take a final decision. with these observations we dispose of this application.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. In this application by M/s. Namah Shivay Enterprises, the prayer is that the slot allotted to them at present, i.e. 9.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on every Monday must continue to be allotted for the extended episodes also, as Doordarshan agreed to have the extension of the serial for another 56 episodes more. This is seriously opposed by the original appellant Prime Channel, on the ground that they were asked to wait till the completion of the initially agreed 91 episodes. As for the intervenor, the contention is that, Monday being an auspicious day for Shiva worshippers, it would be more appropriate that the extended episodes are screened on Monday and not on Tuesday. On the other hand, it is represented on behalf of the original appellant that there are many other considerations for their serial to be screened on Monday itself.

2. We do not think that it is for the Court to decide as to which day should be allolted to one serial or the other. We leave it to Doordarshan to fix up the day or the slot regarding the extended episodes for M/s. Namah Shivay Enterprises in consideration of a variety of factors which they are in a better position to take into account. They can also explore the possibility whether other times can be allotted, if not on all Mondays, at least on alternate Mondays. This is only a suggestion and it is for Doordarshan to take a final decision. With these observations we dispose of this application.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1998 Same Parties Prime Channel and anr. vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Same Subject Commercial Same Judge S.Saghir Ahmed and; K.T. Thomas, JJ.

Commercial