Espn Software India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Decided On : Jun-03-2011

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

LAW: Section 2, Section 11, Article 13 of the Constitution of India, the Principal Act, Indian Contract Act, Section 70, the Indian Contract Act, Section 70, the Indian Contract Act, Section 70, the Contract Act, Section 23 of the Contract Act, Article 19, a Parliamentary Act, the Indian Contract Act, a Parliamentary Act, Section 23, the Contract Act, the Contract Act, Section 70 of the Contract Act, Section 70, the Contract Act, Section 70, the Contract Act, Section 70, Section 70, the Contract Act, Section 70, Section 70, Section 70, the Contract Act, the Article 299 of the Constitution of India, Section 70, Section 73, the Contract Act

ORG: S.B. Sinha, ESPN, the Union Territory of Chandigarh,  egotiation, the Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable Services, it’s, the State of Himachal Pradesh, ESPN, Star Sports, Star Cricket, ESPN, DTH, ESPN Software Private Limited, networks…….&rdquo, Tribunal, Delhi High Court, WP, the Delhi High Court, Tribunal, MA No.30/2011, Tribunal, the Delhi High Court, The Reply of Respondent, Clause 8.1, the Delhi High Court, Clause 4.3 of the Regulations, Gurumukhi, Regulation 4.3, The Delhi High Court, Clause 8.1, Clause 8.1, The High Court, The Statute The Parliament, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, the Telecom Sectors, the Central Government, Cable, the Cable TV Networks, Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, provide&rsquo, Time Period for Renewal, Paragraph 13 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection, under:- “Between Multi System Operator, Interpretation Issue Clause 8.1, Statute, Statute, Regulations, AIR 1985, Explanation, Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd., ETIO, Nirman and Associates Private Ltd., ESPN Software, India Pvt. Ltd., Ors, Harika Cable Vision v. E TV Network, LR Maniram Motiram, the Apex Court, Court, Court, Clause 8.1, Statute, Statute, Court, Regulator, the Sports Channel, Tribunal, Clause 8.1, Tribunal, Den Networks Ltd., Multi Vision Network Petition No.27, Regulations, Tribunal, Clauses 4.1, MSO, Clause 4.3 of the Regulations, water&rsquo, Mediterranean Shipping Co., State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., M. Goldodetz Ltd., Co Pty Ltd v Mundus Trading Co, CLR, Breach of Contract, 2nd Edn, Tribunal, Chitti, Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd., ESPN Software, India Pvt. Ltd., Tribunal, the Supreme Court of India, RBI, Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., AIR 1987, SC, Court, Srinivasa, Star India P. Ltd., Life Style Communication Pvt. Ltd WP, under:- &, TDSAT, TDSAT, TDSAT, Media Systems, ESPN Software, India Pvt. Ltd., Fastway, Ludhiana Office, Fastway, Fastway, Tribunal, Tribunal, Fastway, Effect of Clause A of the Regulations, Broadcasters, Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur, Clause 4A of the Regulations, Regulation, a Statutory Authority, Ex Turpi Causa Non-Oritur Actio, the Calcutta High Court, Shipping Co., Clause 8.1, held:- “The, Interconnection Agreement, Reliance, Tribunal, M/s Total Tele, Tata Sky Ltd., this Tribunal in Total TV, Prasar Bharti, Clauses 4.3, the Date of Disconnection, the Delhi High Court, the Delhi High Court, Tribunal, the Delhi High Court, Tribunal, the Delhi High Court, Tribunal, Clause 8.1, the Supreme Court of India, held:- “5, the High Court, the Dispensary Fund Committees, the High Court, the Dispensary Fund Committee, the Municipal Committee, the High Court, Government, PWD, Court, Municipal Corp., the Supreme Court of India, Tribunal, the Calcutta High Court, Great Easter Shipping Co. Ltd., UOI, AIR 1971 Calcutta, Clause 8.1, Statute, Clause 8.1, the State of Punjab, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, Union Territory of Chandigarh, Gurumukhi, Gurumukhi, Tribunal, Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd, Sun Direct TV, C)/2010, Den Network, New Sports, Tribunal, Clause 4.3 of the Regulations, newspapers…, Den Networks, Regulations, Delhi High Court, The Delhi High Court, the Delhi High Court, Clauses 4.1, Tribunal, MSO, the High Court, MSO, the Delhi High Court, Tribunal, p.a throughout

CARDINAL: as many as seven, five, 8.12.2009, two, seven, only 77,000, about 7.12.2010, one, 3.1.2011, 8.2.2011, three, 28.12.2010, 8.2.2011, 7, 8.1, three, 3, 16, only 77,000, 23.11.2010, one, 28.12.2010, 3.2, 4.3, 4.3, 8, 8.1, 4.3, two, 11.1, three, three, four, four, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 447, 2, 279, two, two, 166, two, 17.1.2011, 8, 1, 4.1, 2, 4.2, 3, 4.2, two, 28thEdition, 1951, 1, 421, 800, 2, 285, 90, 235, 245, 251, 168, 385, 438, 242, One, 20.7.2007, 24.8.2007, 14.11.2008, 28.12.2010, 28.12.2010, 5, 2, 5, two, 5, 8.2.2011, 1, one, 8.1, 4.3, three, 7, 28.12.2010, 8.2.2011, one, 1, 639, three, 150, 15, 16, 77,000, 4.3, two, one, two, two, one, 3.3.2011, 17.1.2011, two, one, 4, 4.3, 8.2, 4.3, 4.2, 4.3, One, 8.2.2011, 8.2.2011

DATE: 2004, three weeks, 2010, 21 days, the expiry of three months, the period of Jan 2011, 27.12.2010, 8724, 2010, the end of December, 2010, April, 2011, three months, three months, 1997, 1995, three weeks, at least two months, the next three months, three weeks, 2006, three months, five months, the past three years, at least two months, next three months, three months, 45, 2007, 2010, 16th December, 2010, 2008, November, 2009, 1985, three months, the three months, three months, the 7th day of the month, the end of the month, 21 days, 1989, 1989, 1954, 1989, 1991, the end of a day, the next day, the next day, 28.5.2010, December, 2006, April 2007, 20.7.2007, the month of July 2010, the month of September 2010, July 2010, June 2010, the month of July 2010, the month of September 2010.&rdquo, 21, February 2011, earlier than February 2011, 21 days, 17.3.2009, at least 21 days, the period September, 2010 to December, 2010, two months, the next three months, three months, three weeks, 15.12.2008, February, 2011, 1973, August 2010, three weeks, 27.12.2010, 21 days, December 2010

PERCENT: 50%, 15%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 50 %, 50 %, 50%, 50%, 50%, 12%

MONEY: about 1.526 millions

LANGUAGE: English, English

PERSON: MA, Ganpathi, Chandigarh, Navin Chawla, i.e 28.2.2010, Regulations, Navin Chawla, Regulations, R. Pattabiraman, Anr, Jagan Nagar, Shah Bhojraj's, Provisos, Interpreter, Broadcaster, Chawla, C)/2010, Chawla, Anson’s Law, Asquith L.J.’s, Howard v. Pickford Tool Company Ltd., Page 277, Peter Turnbull, Further Carter, Contracts, unequivocally&rdquo, Shree Devi, Chawla, Chawla, Gurdeep Singh, Q.4, Gurdeep Singh, Q.8, Chawla, Chawla, Broadcaster, Chawla, Chawla, Chawla, Zee Turner, Chawla, Bench, Prasar Bharti, Chawla, Chawla, Panna Lal, Bhandara, Anr, Chawla, Piyush Mahajan, Ganpathy, 138, Ganpathi, Rs 27,321,376/-

LOC: Respondent

FAC: Rs.2,71,133.376, Clauses 4.2, S Sundaram Pallai

ORDINAL: second, 1st, 3rd, first, second, 5th, 5th, first, first, second, Firstly, first, first, second, second, second, first, second, first, first, second, second, second, first, second, second, third, second

WORK_OF_ART: Distributor of a TV, 27th Edition, Foran v Wight, the Constitution of India

EVENT: Regulation 4

PRODUCT: weeks&rsquo, Report, time&rdquo, C)/2010

GPE: Ghelabhai, Australasia, Australia, Proviso, Delhi, Delhi, Piloo Sidhwa, States

NORP: s.50, English, Fastway, British

TIME: the entire Act, the entire Act, No minutes