1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.762 OF 2011 (Mahesh Nagesh Goje vs. Gulabkhan Dildarkhan Pathan and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1390 OF 2011 (Suresh Adkannaji Raikanthiwar and another vs. Mahesh Nagesh Goje and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. WRIT PETITIN NO.762/2011 Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner Shri R.R. Dawda, Advocate for the respondents. WRIT PETITION NO.1390/2011 Shri R.R. Dawda, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the respondent no.1. ----------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 27 , 2011 The above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to the order dated 30/10/2010 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-1, Chandrapur whereby the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner in Writ 2 Petition No.762/2011 came to be confirmed. However, a direction was issued to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.762/2011 to pay cable charges at the rate of Rs.40/- per connection for 500 connections. The objection of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 762/2011 is to the number of connections for which the petitioner in the said writ petition has been directed to pay whereas the objection of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1390/2011 is as regards the rate at which the respondent no.1 in the said writ petition is directed to pay. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1390/11 is a broadcaster whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No.762/2011 is a cable operator, who is given services by the broadcaster. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 762/2011 has made out a case for grant of temporary injunction in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the appellate Court on the basis of the material on record and more specially the report of the Tahsildar wherein the petitioner in Writ Petition 3 No. 762/2011 is reported to have 547 connections thought it fit, pending the suit, to freeze the number of connections to 500. Insofar as the rate of Rs.40/- per connection is concerned, the appellate Court was of the view that since the same is an undisputed amount, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 762/2011 would be liable to pay the said amount pending the suit though it is the claim of the broadcaster that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 762/2011 is liable to pay at the rate of Rs.65/- per connection. In my view, both the writ petitions are bereft of any merit inasmuch as the interest of both the parties is adequately protected pending the suit. Needless to say that the amount paid by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.762/2011 for the number of connections in question would be subject to final accounting that would take place at the hearing of the said suit, if the parties are in a position to demonstrate that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.762/2011 has less or more number of connections. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petitions are dismissed. The petitioner in Writ Petition 4 No.762/2011 to clear the arrears as directed by the impugned order within a period of one month from date. JUDGE khj