Case Summary
The case involves a petition filed by various defendants seeking rejection of the plaint for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs are cable operators contesting the legality of a circular affecting their operational agreements.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The suit was declared as being barred by jurisdiction and thus was dismissed.
The suit was declared as being barred by jurisdiction and thus was dismissed.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, 1) Petition is allowed. The plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d).
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Cable T V Operators Association (COA) (Age not specified years)
COA Bhavan, G-21, Panamppilly Nagar, Ernakulam, Kerala- 682036
Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. (48 years)
COA Bhavan, 1st Floor, 142-H1A, Thoundayil Road, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi, Kerala- 682036
Kerala Vision Broadband Ltd. (48 years)
1st Floor, 2/72A, Uzhaloor Temple Road, South Thoravu, Puthukkad, Thrissur, Kerala- 680301
K Govindan (66 years)
COA Bhavan, 1st Floor, 142-H1A, Thoundayil Road, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi, Kerala- 682036
Defendants
Anilal Govindan (49 years)
Thenguvila Tharayil, Kallelibhagam Village, Vengara Muri, Thodiyoor North P O, Karunagappally Taluk, Kollam District, Pin-690523
Sajeev Kumar C (51 years)
Kumar Bhavanam, Karunagappally Village, (Padanayarkulangara) Pada North Muri, Karunagappally Taluk, Kollam District, Pin-690518
Vimal Prasad Jain (49 years)
Chakkuvila Melathil, Poruvazhi Village, Edakkad Muri, Kunnathoor Taluk, Kollam District, Pin-691552
Rajesh Kumar (48 years)
Kannel Kizhakkethil, Ayanivelikulangara Village, Pada South Muri, Karunagappally, Kollam District, Pin-690518
Rajan Samuel (62 years)
Mavilazhikathu Veedu, Pavumba Village, Pavumba South Muri, Pavumba South P O, Karunagappally Taluk, Kollam District, Pin-690574
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) for want of jurisdiction.
Evidence:
In the result, Petition is allowed. The plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d).
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Distribution Service Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced as part of plaint, shows agreement between the 1st and 3rd defendants to resolve disputes through TDSAT.
Reference:
Document No.4