O.S. No.717/2023

Case between Cable T V Operators Association (COA) et al vs Anilal Govindan et al regarding rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC

Court

COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM

Judge

Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany

Order Date

2025-02-19

Duration

Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

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

Defendant Won

Interim Order

The court allowed the petition for rejection of the plaint, concluding that the matter was barred by jurisdiction. The plaintiffs were found to have not established the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

Key Reasoning:
The suit was declared as being barred by jurisdiction and thus was dismissed.

Why Defendant Won:
Not available

Supporting Evidence

The court found that the matter was to be adjudicated by TDSAT as per the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, thus lacking jurisdiction.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, 1) Petition is allowed. The plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d).

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Cable T V Operators Association (COA)
Relation: Represented by

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd.
Party Age: 48
Relation: Represented by

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Kerala Vision Broadband Ltd.
Party Age: 48
Relation: Represented by

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: K Govindan
Party Age: 66
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Anilal Govindan
Party Age: 49
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Sajeev Kumar C
Party Age: 51
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Vimal Prasad Jain
Party Age: 49
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Rajesh Kumar
Party Age: 48
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Rajan Samuel
Party Age: 62
Relation: S/o

Plaintiffs Documents

Distribution Service Agreement dated 01.04.2020

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Sandeep Gopalakrishnan
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Jinnu Sara George
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Zafar Antonio
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Anju Davis K
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Edna K Shibu
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Dr. Sankarjee
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: R Udaya Jyothi
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: M M Vinod
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: VN Madhusoodhanan
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: M Suseela
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Keerthi B Chandran
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Vijayan Pillai P K
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: K H Sakir
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

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

Case Classification