SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 114

RANJAN GOGOI, PRAFULLA C.PANT
Prasar Bharati – Appellant
Versus
Board of Control for Cricket in India – Respondent


ORDER

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. It is our considered view that at this stage we ought not to consider the submissions made on behalf of the parties on the merits of the controversy as the same may have the effect of prejudicing either of the parties.

3. We have considered the suggestions put forward on behalf of the respondents. The first suggestion is with regard to setting up of an extra/special channel which has been contended by Prasar Bharati to be unviable and technically unfeasible within any reasonable period of time. Though an offer has been made on behalf of respondent No. 4 to make available its expertise and personnel to aid the Prasar Bharati, we are not inclined to consider the said offer made on behalf of respondent No. 4. The first suggestion put forward therefore does not merit acceptance.

4. Insofar as the second suggestion i.e. putting up a scroll to the effect that “the channel displaying the sports event (concerned ICC World Cup 2015 matches) is meant only for Doordarshan” has received our consideration. Acceptance of the said suggestion would be understanding the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Shar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top