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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1

VINOD K.SHARMA
. – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Vinod K. Sharma, J.

1 The plaintiff/applicant has filed this application for interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 4 and other unknown defendants represented by John Doe or Ashok Kumar, replaceable by future respondents, from in any manner transmitting the cable TV signals in analogue mode or operating analogue head end or importing cable TV signals from Non-DAS areas or rolling out cable TV signals without DAS license to the consumers within the Chennai Metropolitan area till the disposal of the suit.

2 The plaintiff/applicant has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 and other unknown defendants represented by John Doe or Ashok Kumar, replaceable by future respondents, from in any manner transmitting the cable TV signals in analogue mode or operating analogue head end or importing cable TV signals from Non-DAS areas or rolling out cable TV signals without DAS license to the consumers within the Chennai Metropolitan area.

3 The plaintiff/applicant is in the cable business for the last several years and running cable TV business after getting valid license from the postal department. The plaintiff/applicant is operating in
























































































































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