{"id":175379,"date":"2009-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-06-07T02:10:39","modified_gmt":"2016-06-06T20:40:39","slug":"ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\/S. Asianet Satellite … on 8 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\/S. Asianet Satellite … on 8 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nArb.A.No. 51 of 2009()\n\n\n1. M\/S. C SAT CABLE VISION,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M\/S. ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATION\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SAJI VARGHESE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :08\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n       P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.\n              ...............................................................................\n           ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2009\n              .........................................................................\n                    Dated this the 8th December, 2009\n\n                                   J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
P.R. Raman, J:\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the District<\/p>\n
Court in O.P.(Arbitration )No.112 of 2009 filed by the respondent<\/p>\n
herein. The respondent herein approached the court below under<\/p>\n
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 claiming<\/p>\n
certain interim reliefs. According to them, they are in the field of<\/p>\n
distribution of Cable T.V. programmes and also providing cable<\/p>\n
network services in the State of Kerala. They have got their own<\/p>\n
established network and cable channels and                                               are providing<\/p>\n
superior quality signal and services. The appellant herein had<\/p>\n
approached them with a proposal for setting up of joint venture<\/p>\n
business in Cherai in Ernakulam district and some adjoining areas<\/p>\n
with the intention of providing the subscribers with better and<\/p>\n
quality telecast       of cable TV                 programmes.                       They reached a<\/p>\n
Memorandum Of Understanding                                 for entering into the joint<\/p>\n
venture.    The respondent paid a sum of Rs. Five lakhs as<\/p>\n
advance.     The appellant, on the other hand,                                                given an<\/p>\n
undertaking stating             the total number of active customers, the<\/p>\n
ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2009<\/p>\n
                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
monthly revenue and monthly profits of his existing business. He<\/p>\n
also undertook that the network generates a monthly profit of<\/p>\n
Rs.4,31,000\/- and that the total value of the business owned by<\/p>\n
him at the time of execution of the agreement was Rs. 80 lakhs.<\/p>\n
60% of the value was agreed to be purchased by the respondent<\/p>\n
herein and they executed a joint agreement          and a further<\/p>\n
amount of Rs. 19 lakhs was paid by the respondent herein.<\/p>\n
Thus a total of Rs.24 lakhs had been paid by the respondent.<\/p>\n
There are other conditions also between the parties.       It was<\/p>\n
contended that though the income generated from the joint<\/p>\n
venture was agreed to be shared between the parties in the ratio<\/p>\n
of 60:40, no amount had been paid to the respondent herein.<\/p>\n
The rest of the contentions are not relevant at this stage.<\/p>\n
     2. The appellant herein admitted the joint agreement<\/p>\n
entered into between the parties, but contended that they had<\/p>\n
large business in   Ernakulam district, specified area in Cherai<\/p>\n
having 1485 direct connections and 12,000 link connections at<\/p>\n
the time of signing the Memorandum Of Understanding and<\/p>\n
joint venture agreement.      It was contended by the appellant<\/p>\n
herein that after the agreement, the respondent deliberately<\/p>\n
ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2009<\/p>\n
                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
with an intent to catch the entire business run by the appellant<\/p>\n
herein, given the connections at the specified area of the<\/p>\n
appellant. Contrary to the various conditions mentioned in the<\/p>\n
joint venture agreement, they also        gave thousands of link<\/p>\n
connections    in the specified area, as a result of which the<\/p>\n
appellant had to suffer loss of about Rs.3 lakhs till 14.11.2008 for<\/p>\n
non payment of subscription amount by the subscribers, since<\/p>\n
the respondent’s agents are collecting subscriptions by giving<\/p>\n
direct connections in the specified area of the appellant.   It was<\/p>\n
also stated that a notice was issued on 06.12.2008 stating that<\/p>\n
due to the breach of conditions of agreement by the respondent,<\/p>\n
the appellant had suffered a loss of Rs. 8 lakhs till 06.12.2008<\/p>\n
and that they are rescinding the agreement dated 29.09.2008.<\/p>\n
     3. The court below marked Exts. P1 to P4 and Exts. R1 to<\/p>\n
R5 for the limited purpose of disposal of the petition. The interim<\/p>\n
direction sought for was to direct the appellant to furnish<\/p>\n
security for Rs.34,34,400\/-.      Necessary issues were framed<\/p>\n
including whether the respondent was entitled to get an<\/p>\n
injunction order restraining the appellant herein from collecting<\/p>\n
the amount from the Cable T.V. subscribers of the joint venture.<\/p>\n
ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2009<\/p>\n
                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
The court below, after consideration of the plea raised between<\/p>\n
the parties    and also referring to the documents      produced,<\/p>\n
passed an interim order, by which the appellant was directed to<\/p>\n
furnish   bank guarantee for Rs.10 lakhs in the name of the<\/p>\n
District Court for a period of two years and also to deposit 25%<\/p>\n
of the gross total income of the business every month before the<\/p>\n
District Court towards share of the respondent herein without fail<\/p>\n
and appointed the appellant as the Receiver. The appellant was<\/p>\n
also directed to submit the monthly account before the District<\/p>\n
Court . It was also made clear that in case of failure to comply<\/p>\n
with the directions issued as aforesaid, the direction to appoint<\/p>\n
him as Receiver will be terminated and an official receiver will be<\/p>\n
appointed to manage the business.\n<\/p>\n
       4. Thus it can be seen that the Court, with a view to watch<\/p>\n
the conduct of the parties and having been prima facie satisfied,<\/p>\n
thought it fit to appoint the appellant herein as the Receiver with<\/p>\n
liability to account, directed the appellant to furnish bank<\/p>\n
guarantee for Rs. 10 lakhs and to deposit 25% of the gross<\/p>\n
total income of the business every month.\n<\/p>\n
       5. Adv. Mr. Dinesh R. Shenoy, the learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2009<\/p>\n
                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant submitted that the directions to furnish bank guarantee<\/p>\n
works out much hardship to him and that instead of furnishing<\/p>\n
bank guarantee for Rs.10 lakhs, he prayed that, it may be<\/p>\n
modified so as to enable him to furnish it by way of immovable<\/p>\n
property.   Incidentally, he has also requested that        some<\/p>\n
modification in respect of the direction to deposit 25% of the<\/p>\n
total income may also be made.\n<\/p>\n
      6.  The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent<\/p>\n
submitted that the appellant had disposed of more than 11 items<\/p>\n
of property and therefore substituting the security by way of<\/p>\n
immovable property will not instill any confidence.       He also<\/p>\n
prays that if he is appointed as the Receiver, he is prepared to<\/p>\n
comply with the above conditions.\n<\/p>\n
      7. We are not proposing to go into the rival claims made by<\/p>\n
the parties as they are matters for adjudication by appropriate<\/p>\n
forum in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the<\/p>\n
agreement.    The limited question for consideration is as to<\/p>\n
whether   the   conditions  imposed     are   onerous   and  any<\/p>\n
modification  is necessary to reduce the hardship, if any, in<\/p>\n
enforcing the conditions. We find that the direction to furnish<\/p>\n
ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2009<\/p>\n
                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
security for Rs.10 lakhs by way of bank guarantee may cause<\/p>\n
undue hardship to the appellant. Rather, it will be sufficient, if<\/p>\n
the same is reduced to Rs. Five lakhs and for the balance amount<\/p>\n
of Rs. Five lakhs,    to furnish security by way of immovable<\/p>\n
property.    But we do not propose to make any variation<\/p>\n
regarding the deposit of 25% of the total income, at this stage.<\/p>\n
However, since the appellant is appointed as the Receiver, he is<\/p>\n
bound to account the income generated from the business. If the<\/p>\n
disputes are not    finally settled within another period of six<\/p>\n
months, it will be open to him to convince the Court that the<\/p>\n
direction to   deposit 25% of the total income in the factual<\/p>\n
situation  requires some modification. In that event, the court<\/p>\n
will consider such   request and pass appropriate orders, after<\/p>\n
hearing both the parties. With regard to the direction to the<\/p>\n
appellant to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.10 lakhs, we modify<\/p>\n
the same by directing to furnish Bank guarantee for an amount<\/p>\n
of Rs. Five lakhs  and to deposit the bank guarantee before the<\/p>\n
court below. The appellant shall furnish security for the balance<\/p>\n
amount by way of immovable property. For that purpose, a list<\/p>\n
of items of immovable property along with the title documents<\/p>\n
ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2009<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
be furnished before the court below          with notice to the<\/p>\n
respondent herein.    In such an event, the court below, after<\/p>\n
hearing the parties, will accept such of those properties as are<\/p>\n
found to be under the legal ownership of the appellant and are<\/p>\n
found to be sufficient    to discharge his liability of furnishing<\/p>\n
security to the satisfaction of Rs.5 lakhs. The order passed by<\/p>\n
the court below is modified to the above extent.<\/p>\n
      In view of pendency of the matter before this court, the<\/p>\n
time for compliance, as stipulated in the order of the court below,<\/p>\n
is extended by two weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        P.R. RAMAN,
\n                                           JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
\n                                          JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
lk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\/S. Asianet Satellite … on 8 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Arb.A.No. 51 of 2009() 1. M\/S. C SAT CABLE VISION, … Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S. ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATION … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY For Respondent :SRI.SAJI VARGHESE The Hon’ble […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-175379","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\/S. Asianet Satellite ... on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\/S. Asianet Satellite ... on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-06T20:40:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\\\/S. Asianet Satellite … on 8 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-06T20:40:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1348,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\\\/S. Asianet Satellite ... on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-06T20:40:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\\\/S. Asianet Satellite … on 8 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\/S. Asianet Satellite ... on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\/S. Asianet Satellite ... on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-06T20:40:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\/S. Asianet Satellite … on 8 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-06T20:40:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009"},"wordCount":1348,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009","name":"M\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\/S. Asianet Satellite ... on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-06T20:40:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-c-sat-cable-vision-vs-ms-asianet-satellite-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. C Sat Cable Vision vs M\/S. Asianet Satellite … on 8 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175379","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=175379"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175379\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175379"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175379"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175379"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}