The scope of review jurisdiction does not allow re-appreciation of facts, which must be conducted within the boundaries of established errors on the record.

JUDGMENT

1. This Review Application No. 10 of 2023, under section 14 A, read with Section 16 (2) (f) of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act , 1997 (TRAI Act, 1997), has been filed by Review Applicant/ Respondent, for Review of the Impugned Judgment, dated 09.08.2023, with its decree dated 29.08.2023, passed in BP No. 391 of 2016, with a contention that BP No. 391 of 2016, was filed by Petitioner, for recovery of the dues from the Respondent, pertaining to two agreements, dated 01.02.2014 and 28.07.2015, for a period from 01.06.2013 to 31.05.2015, as well as 01.06.2015 to 31.05.2017, and these two agreements were of a total value of Rs. 6,10,00,000/-, ought to be paid by Review Respondent in its Jeevan Telecasting facility to the Petitioner. And on 31.12.2016, Review Respondent paid Rs. 3,83,05,645/- to the Petitioner. Thenafter, in terms of the additional affidavit, dated 25.02.2023, filed by Petitioner, the Review Respondent paid Rs. 2,26,08,375/- to the Petitioner after 31.12.2016.

2. Out of total consideration of Rs. 6,10,00,000/- in terms of the agreement dated 01.02.2014 and 28.07.2015, the Review Respondent paid Rs. 6,09,14,020/-. Therefore, the difference amount was of Rs. 85,980/- to be paid to Petitioner, as on 31.05.2017. On the contrary, the Petitioner claimed Rs. 1,05,68,330/- as the Principal amount in the additional affidavit, which is baseless and contrary to agreement. The Principal amount shown as of Rs. 7,14,82,350/-, was contrary to agreement.

3. It is admitted that Petitioner in the additional affidavit, dated 25.02.2023, gave a statement and admitted that the Review Respondent has paid Rs. 2,26,08,375/- to the Petitioner, after 31.12.2016. But, the calculation submitted by Petitioner was wrong. The Tribunal completely erred in calculating Rs. 7,14,82,350/- as the Principal amount, against the Principal amount to be in the tune of Rs. 6,10,00,000/- only. Post decree interest was calculated @ 9%. But, the interest calculated by Petitioner is wrong.

4. A Review Application No. 7 of 2023 has been filed by Petitioner, then this Review Application No. 10 of 2023 has been filed by Respondent. Hence, the prayer is to modify the mistake in the Judgment, where it had calculated Principal amount as Rs. 7,14,82,350/-, instead of Rs. 6,10,00,000/-, in the Judgment, dated 09.08.2023.

5. This was replied by Petitioner.

6. Heard Learned Counsels for both side and gone through materials placed on record.

7. Issues were framed. Evidences were led. Arguments were heard. Impugned judgment was got passed.

8. Vide impugned judgment, dated 9.8.2023, recovery petition was got allowed, and decreed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this Review cum modification application, is with prayer to modify the mistake in the impugned judgment dated 9.8.2023 and decree dated 29.8.2023.

9. From the very perusal of record, it is apparent that Broadcasting Petition No. 391 of 2016, was filed by Petitioner – opposite party in present Review Application against Respondent- present Applicant, with a prayer for a decree, in favour of Petitioner and against Respondent.

10. This Petition was replied by applicant-Respondent, with a contention that Respondent, being a registered Company, runs a Free to Air Regional Satellite Television Channel and operates with the aim of providing great service to the people of Kerala by promoting family and constitutional values, respect for integrity of the country, as well as providing the public with a Kerala centric view of the world, in India as well as Persian Gulf. Agreement dated 01.02.2014 and 31.05.2015, with the Petitioner Company was undisputed. The amount as well as interest accrued there at,