t K IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 5109/2010 & CM APPLs 10061-62/2010 Reservedon: 3''''August2010 Decision on; 11August 2010 MSM DISCOVERY PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner Through: Mr. Soli Sorabjee, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocates with Mr. GopalJain,Ms. SmritiMishra,Mr. Zeyaul Haque, Mr. Kaushik Mishra, Advocates versus VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. Respondents Through: Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocates with Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Mr. Ameet Nair, Mr. Rishi Aggarwal,Mr. HarshvardhanJha, Mr. Akshay Ringe and Mr. Nildiil Rohatgi, Advocates for R-1/Viacom 18.. Mr. A.G. Bhambhani with Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Ms. Sonia Sharma and Mr. Lakshita Sheth, Advocate for Discovery (P). ^^^C)5111/2010&CMAPPL10076/2010 STAR DEN MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD. Petitioner Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prateek Kumar, Mr. Gaurav Juneja and Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Advocates versus TELEVISION EIGHTEEN INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. •. ••• Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeev Nayyar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishi Aggarwal, Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Mr. Ameet Nair, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Mr. Akshay Ringe and Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Advocates for R-1. Mr. A.G. Bhambhani with Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Ms. Sonia Sharma and Mr. Lakshita Sheth, Advocate for Discovery (P). W.P.(C) 5112/2010 & CM APPL 10078/2010 STAR DEN MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner W.P. (C) Nos. 5109,5111 and5112of2010 Page1 of37 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Through:Mr. S. Ganesh,SeniorAdvocatewitj Mr. Prateek Kumar, Mr. Gaurav Juneja and Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Advocates versus TELEVISION EIGHTEEN INDIA LIMITED AND ANR. Respondents Through: Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishi Aggarwal, Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Mr. Ameet Nair, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Mr. Akshay Ringe and Mr. Nildiil Rohatgi, Advocates for R-L Mr. A.G. Bhambhani with Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Ms. Sonia Sharma and Mr. Lalcshita Sheth, Advocate for Discovery (P). CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 11.08.2010 1. Writ Petition(C) No. 5109 of 2010 under Articles226 and 227 of the Constitutionby theMSM DiscoveryPrivateLtd. ('MSMD') challengesan interlocutoryorder dated 27"^ July 2010 passedby the TelecomDisputes Settlementand AppellateTribunal('TDSAT') in PetitionNo. 220(C) of 2010 filed by Respondent No. 1 Viacom 18 Media Private Ltd. ('Viacoml8'). The TDSAT has, by the impugned interlocutoryorder, restrained the Petitioner MSMD from representing Viacom18 with any third party until further orders. 2. Writ Petition (C) Nos. 5111 and 5112 of 2010 by Star Den Media Services Private Ltd. (STAR DEN) challengethe order dated 29^^ July W.P.(C)Nos. 5109,5111 and5112of2010 Page2of37 h 2010 passed by the TDSAT declininginterim relief to STAR DENy^ Petition No. 248(C) of 2010 while granting an interim relief in Petition No. 222(C) of 2010 filed by Television 18 India Ltd. (TV 18') and IBN 18 Broadcast Ltd. (TEN 18') Respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Since both sets of petitions raise similar issues they are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. At the outset, this Court would like to observe that this Court's power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to judicially review the order of a tribunal is limited. The power is even more limited in regard to interlocutoryorders, like the impugnedones. Unless it is shown that the impugnedorders are perverseor sufferfrom some materialirregularityor are in violation of the principles of natural justice, interference would generally not be called for. Facts in W.P. (C) No. 5109 of2010 by MSMD 4. On 11^^ February 2009, MSMD and ViacomlS entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) whereby MSMD was granted exclusive distribution rights of VI8 channels, i.e., 'MTV, 'Nick', 'Vhl' and 'Colors' for a period of three years commencingT' April 2009 and expiringon 31"'March 2012. Inter alia, the MOU was a revenuesharing one where apart from MSMD paying Viacom18 a fixed fee and a minimum guaranteefee, ViacomlS would also have a share in the total revenue of MSMD on the basis of a formula set out in the agreement itself W.P. (C) Nos. 5109,5111and 5112of2010 Page3 of37 5. Clause XX of the said MOU which is relevant for the present purposes reads as under: "XX. Termination Either Party shall be entitled to terminate this MOU or the long form Agreement on material breach of any term or terms contained in such MOU or the Long Form Agreement. However, no such termination shall be effected unless the aggrieved party submits a 90 day Notice on the other party so alleged to be in breach and offers the latter reasonable opportunity to cure such alleged breach. In the event the material breach is suitably addressed or cured to the satisfaction of both the Parties, no further cause shall sustain of such notice for termination. The consequences of breach, including penalty if any, shall be dealt with in the Long Form Agreement." 6. On IS^*" July 2010, Viacom18 terminated the MOU by way of a communication sent to MSMD. Admittedly, this was done without giving 90 days' prior notice as envisaged by Clause XX of the MOU. The ostensible reason for Viacom 18 to have terminated the agreement was that MSMD had acted in breach of its contractual obligation to place Viacom18's channels at prime slots in the bouquet of channelsofferedby MSMD as an 'aggregator' to Multi-SystemOperators(MSOs).ViacomlS allegedthat MSMD had been placingthe channels of ViacomlS's rival broadcaster Sony in prime slots in the packages offered by Direct to Home (DTH) operatorslike Dish TV and Tata Sky who inter alia had about 70 per cent of the market. 7. It must be mentioned here that under the MOU, MSMD acted as an agent of ViacomlS. In its role as an 'aggregator', it distributedthe W.P. (C) Nos. 5109,5111 and 5112of2010 Page4 of37 channels of broadcasters as part of a distribution platform by creating single or multiple bouquets to MSOs, local cable operators (LCOs)/affiliates/DTHoperators for IPTV and other digital distribution networks for ultimate viewership by the consumer. As an 'aggregator' MSMD had the authority to collect subscription revenues jfrom MSG, LCO, DTH operatorsfor the televisionsignalsmade availableto them by the broadcaster.It is importantto note that the signals do not pass through any system of the aggregator and are directly delivered to the MSOs/LCOs/DTHoperatorsthrough satellite.The case of MSMD is that it has no control over the broadcaster ViacomlS's signals since Viacom 18 uplinks the signals to the satellite directly. The MSOs/LCOs/DTH operators downlink the signal directly and decrypt the signals using Viacom 18's Integrated Receiver Decoders (IRDs). 8. On July 2010 MSMD issued a cease and desist notice to Sun TV Network Ltd., which along with Viacom18 had formed a joint venture "Sun 18" which would begin distribution of 33 channels including the four channels of Viacoml8 being distributed by MSMD. This arrangementwas to take effectfrom the afternoonof13'^July 2010 itself. On 15^*^ July 2010, MSMD filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('AC Act') in the High Court of Bombay praying inter alia for an interim order restraining Viacom18 "from executing any agreementswith Multi System Operators, affiliates, cable operatorsin violationof the Petitioner'srights underthe MOU and in respect of the four channels viz. Colors, Nick, MTV and Vhl". The Petitioner's case in the Section 9 application was that the termination of W.P. {C} Nos. 5109,5111 and 5112of2010 Page5 of37 the MOU broughtaboutby the letterdated 13^*^ July 2010 was illegaland that Viacom 18 should be restrained from giving effect to the said communication. 9. On 16^*^ July 2010, when the case was taken up in the High Court of Bombay, Viacom 18 informed the High Court that they had already executed an agreement with M/s Network 18 Media Investment Ltd. (NMIL) for the purposes of distributing and marketing of the four channels and that Viacom 18 was not "required to enter into any agreement with Multi System Operators, affiliates, cable operators in regard to these four channels in respect of subject matter of the agreement which was entered into with the petitionersbeing agreementdated 11^^ February 2009". Taking note of the above statement made by the Senior counsel for Viacom 18, the Bombay High Court declined the interim relief prayed for by MSMD. 10. It is pointed out by Viacom18 that notwithstanding the above order even on 17"^ July 2010 MSMD was claimingthat it had a "water-tighf contract valid till 31®' March 2012 and "there is no way the Viacom 18 Channels could walk out of the above agreement". Proceedings before the TDSAT 11. Meanwhileon 15'^ July 2010 Viacoml8filed PetitionNo. 220 (C) of 2010 under Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act') before the TDSAT. The main prayer was for the recovery of a sum of Rs.20,90,36,289/- from MSMD along with interest at W.P. (C) Nos. 5109, 5111 and 5112 of2010 Page 6 of 37 V 18% per annum and adirectionto MSMD to render true and correct^'O account of the revenues generated by it in respect of the distribution of the four channelsof Viacom18 from 1®^ April 2009 till 13^ July 2010 and to paythe resultantdeficittogetherwith interestat 18% per annum. Another prayer was for permanentlyrestrainingMSMD "from representingthe Petitioner"in any manner and directingMSMD to removethe channelsof Viacom 18 from MSMD's website/brochures/RIOs/bouquets/tiers/ advertisements etc. A prayer was also made to permanently restrain MSMD from directly or indirectly interfering with the distribution and marketingof the said channelsof Viacom18 eitherby Viacom18 itselfor its alliance. 12. The interimprayerssoughtby Viacom18 beforethe TDSATincluded a prayer to "restrain the Respondent (MSMD) from representingthe Petitioner(Viacoml8)aftertheterminationof the MoUon 13.7.2010." 13. On 19^^July 2010,theTDSATpassedthe followingorder: "Admit. Mr. Kaushik Mishra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Reply to the main petition be filed within two weeks and rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. Put up the matter for fiirther directions on 19.8.2010. Let the matter appear for hearing on interim relief on 21.7.2010 as it is stated that in the meanwhile, the respondent shall also file an appropriate petition before us. The petitioner is given liberty to file an additional affidavit in course of the day and servea copythereofto the learnedcounselfor the respondent." W.P. (C) Nos. 5109, 5111 and 5112of2010 Page7of37 14. Pursuant to the permission granted by the TDSAT Viacom18 filed an additional affidavit before the TDSAT on 19^*^ July 2010 in which inter alia it set out the events that took place subsequent to the termination of the MOU on IS^*" July 2010. It is pointed out that althoughthe TDSAT was informedby MSMD that it wouldbe filing an "appropriatepetition", no such petitionwas filed even by the time the TDSAT finallyheardthe prayers for interim relief on 22"^^ July 2010 and reserved orders. Thereafterthe impugnedorderwas passedon 27^^ July2010. 15. In the impugnedorder, the TDSAT proceededon the basis that the following two facts were not in dispute: (i) That Viacom18 had terminated the contract by issuanceof a noticedated 13'*^July 2010. (ii) The said notice was in violationof the clause XX of the agreement. 16. The TDSAT then discussed the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('SRA') and in particularSections 14(1) (a), 38(2), 41(e) and 42 thereof It also considered the effect of Sections 201 to 206 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (^ContractAct'). The TDSAT took note of the fact that on 13^^ July 2010, Viacom18 had enteredinto an MOU with NMIL and fiirtherthat the BombayHigh Courthad declinedto grant any interim relief to MSMD in its petitionunder Section 9 of the AC Act. It then observed that "the doctrine of amity or comity may be held to be applicable." W.P. (C) Nos. 5109,5111 and5112of2010 Page8of37 V ; 17. The TDSAT concluded that on the basis of the materials placed on record, MSMD would not be entitledto an order of injunctionit had sought since it would, in effect, be seeking specific performanceof a contractwhichcouldnot be specificallyenforcedin viewof the bar under Section 41(e) of the SRA. It then concludedthat converselyViacomlS would be entitled to an injunctionrestrainingMSMD from representing others that it is acting on behalfof ViacomlS. Since Clause XX of the MOU was not a negative covenant, the exceptionin Section 42 of the SRA could also not apply in favour of MSMD. The TDSAT also took note of the decisionof the SupremeCourt in Southern RoadwaysLtd. v. S.M. Krishnaii (1989) 4 SCC 603. Submissions of Counsel 18. On behalf of the Petitioner MSMD, it is submitted by Mr. Soli Sorabjee and Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel, that the impugned order of the TDSAT suffers from a patent illegalitysince it grantedinterimreliefto ViacomlSdespiteholdingthat the terminationof the MOU, in violationof ClauseXX thereof,was illegal.It is submitted that in such circumstances no equitable relief, much less an interim mandatoryinjunctionagainstMSMD and in favour of ViacomlS could have been granted. Secondly, it is submitted that when MSMD's substantivepetitionhad notyetbeenconsideredbytheTDSAT,therewas no question of hypothesizingwhether MSMD could have been granted any interimreliefin such petition.Furtherthe TDSAT erred in deciding the saidquestionin the negative,and as a corollary,grantinginterimrelief to ViacomlS. It is submitted that the TDSAT committed a jurisdictional W.P. (C) Nos. 5109,5111 and5112of2010 Page9of37 error in deciding an issue that did not arise for consideration.Thirdly, it is submitted that since Viacom 18 had not made out any prima facie case, no interim relief could have been granted to it. Further on balance of convenience, which was an aspect not considered at all by the TDSAT, interim relief should have been denied to Viacom 18. The ostensible reason given by Viacom18 for terminatingthe contractwas that MSMD had not made enough effortsto ensurethat favourableslots were givento the four channels of Viacom18 in the bouquet of channels offered to the MSOsbyMSMD. 19. It is pointed out that in terms of the Clause 13.2A.11 of the Telecommunications(Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (FourthAmendment)Regulation2007, no agent of such broadcastercan "directlyor indirectly,compel any direct to home operatorto offer the entirebouquetor bouquetsofferedby the broadcasterto such operatorin any packageor scheme being offeredby such directto home operatorto its direct to home subscribers." It is submitted that the positioning of the channels of Viacoml8, particularly in Tata Sky or Dish TV, was not within the control of MSMD and, therefore, even otherwise the termination of the MoU was fully unjustified. Relying on the judgment of the MadhyaPradesh High Court in Jabalpur Cable NetworkPvt. Ltd. v. ESPN SoftwareIndia Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1999MP 271, it is pointedthat the peculiarnatureof the transactionswhich formed a chainwas such that it would have huge repercussionsin the industry.It is pointed out that the Petitionerhas alreadyenteredinto thousandsof individualcontractswith MSOs all over the country, and in turn there were several tens of W.P. {C) Nos. 5109,5111 and5112of2010 Page10of37 'A thousandsof LCOs and a greaternumber of consumersand all ofthem ^ would be affected. It is submitted that the 90 days' notice period was mandatoryand basedon anunderstandingthatit wouldtake eitherpartyat least three months' time to make alternative arrangements to cope with the adverse effect of the termination of the MOU. Without prejudice to the pleas taken, it was submittedthat Viacom18 should permit the present arrangementto continueat leasttill the end of 2010. 20. Appearingfor ViacomlS,it is submittedby Dr. A.M. Singhviand Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel that it was neitherpemiissiblein law nor possiblefor the TDSAT to put back the partiesto a positionin whichthey were priorto the terminationofthe MOU. It is submittedthat in the light of Section 15 of the TRAI Act, it was not possible for the disputes between the parties to be brought before any other forum. Whatever relief that ViacomlS may have got by filing a civil suit, was requiredto be soughtby it beforethe TDSAT. It is pointedout that there were two immediateconsequencesof the terminationof the MOU which had to be tackledby ViacomlS.One was the claim by MSMD that the terminationwas illegal on the basis of which it issued a cease and desist noticeto the Sun TV Networkafter learningthat ViacomlShad, on 14^'' July 2010 itself, entered into a separate distributorshipagreementwith NMTT,. The second was that despitethe terminationof the MOU, MSMD was continuingto hold itselfout as an agentof ViacomlS.It is submitted that irrespectiveof whetherthe terminationwas valid or not, the parties could not be put back to a position as if the MOU had not been W.P. (C) Nos. 5109,5111 and5112of2010 Page11 of37 terminated. The only remedy available to MSMD, and which proposition had been acceptedby the TDSAT,was that it couldclaimdamagesforthe losses suffered by it. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service (1991) 1 see 533 as well as of this Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shriram Gas Service 57 (1995) DLT 279 and Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. V. Stroh Brewery CompanyAIR 2000 Delhi 450. On the strengthof the decision in Southern Roadways Ltd. v. S.M. Krishnan and the judgment of this Court in Western International University Inc. v. Modi Apollo InternationalGroupPvt. Ltd. [orderdated20'^ July 2009 in lA No. 7849, 8725 of 2009 in CS (OS) No. 1123 of 2009], it is submitted that a mandatory temporary injunction could be granted to restrain an agent from continuingto hold out as an agent of a party notwithstandingthe termination of the contract. 21. This Court has been shown a copy of the public notice issued by Viacom18 subsequentto the order of the TDSAT. The notice states that Sun 18 Media Services would distribute the four channels of Viacom 18 and that the TDSAT had restrained MSMD from representing VI8 Channels. It was clarified in the public notice that "all distributors of TV channels can pay the outstanding Subscription Fees for the services received by them with respect to VI8 Channels till 12"^ July 2010 to MSMD. With effect from 13^^ July 2010, the SubscriptionFees for the VI8 Channels will be payable to SUN 18 Media Services." It was submittedby Dr. Singhvi,the learnedSeniorCounselfor Viacom18 that without prejudiceto their any other contentionsbefore the TDSAT, in W.P. (C) Nos. 5109,5111 and5112of2010 Page12of37 order to mitigate any hardship that might be faced by MSMD tliey were • willing to assist MSMD in recovering all dues owed to it from its MSOs i up to 12^'' July 2010. It is, however, submitted,that since there is a completelack of faith and trustbetweenthe parties,ViacomlSwouldnot like to have MSMD act as its agent hereafter and, therefore, the offer that theymay be permittedto continueto actas an agentofViacomlSas such till further orders is not acceptable. It was submitted that the damages or lossesallegedlysufferedby MSMD were capableof beingquantifiedand awarded to it, if MSMD succeeded before the TDSAT. Therefore, the vacatingof the interimrelief grantedby the TDSATto Viacom 18 at this stage at the instance of MSMDwas not called for. TDSAT's powers 22. The first aspect to be consideredis the scope of the powers of the TDSATto grant interlocutoryreliefs.Keepingin viewthe positionof the parties - one as the 'aggregator' and the other as the 'producer' of programmes for television,their disputes necessarilyhave to go only before the TDSAT in terms of Section 14 read with Section 15 of the TRAI Act. Matters relating to consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, a dispute governed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 and the dispute between a telegraph authority and any other person in terms of Section 7B(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are excluded. Section 15 of the TRAI Act is a complete bar on any civil court entertainingany suit or proceedingin respectof any matterwhich the TDSAT is empoweredto determineand no court or other authority can issue any injunction "in respect of any W.P. (C) Nos. 5109,5111 and5112of2010 Page13of37 action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or •under this Act." 23. Under Section 16(1) of the TRAI Act, althoughthe TDSAT is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is expectedto be guided by the principlesof naturaljusticeand can also regulateits own procedure.UnderSection16(2),for thepurposes of discharging its functions, the TDSAT shall have the same powers as vested in the civil court, while trying a civil suit. This includes, under Section 16(2) (f), the powerto reviewits decisions.Under Section 16(2) (g), it can dismissan applicationfor defaultor decide it, ex parte and so on. A reference is made to the above provisions to emphasise that the TDSAT has all the powers as the civil court would have if it were to decide a suit for permanent injunction and an application for interim I mandatoryinjunction.In fact it has powers wider than a civil court does because it is not constrained by having to follow only the CPC provisions: Indeedin Union ofIndia v. Tata Teleservices(Maharashtra) Ltd. (2007) 7see 517the Supremecourtwhile analyzingthe provisionsof the TRAI Act observed (SCC @p. 523): "15. The conspectus of the provisions of the Act clearly indicates that disputesbetweenthe licensee or licensor, between two or more service providers which takes in the Government and includes a licensee and between a service provider and a group of consumersare withinthe purviewof the TDSAT. A plainreadingofthe relevantprovisionsofthe Act inthe lightof the preamble to the Act and the Objects and Reasons for enactingthe Act, indicatesthat disputesbetweenthe concerned parties, which would involve significanttechnicalaspects, are M/.P.Vc,) A/OS. 5109,5111 and5112of2010 Page14of37 to be determined by a specialised tribunal constituted for that purpose.Thereis also an ousterofjurisdictionof the civil court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the TDSAT is empowered by or under the Act to determine. The civil court also has no jurisdiction to grant an • < injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. The constitution of the TDSAT itself indicates that it is chaired by a sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court or sitting or a retired Chief Justice of the High Court, one of the highest judicialofficersin the hierarchyand the membersthereofhave to be of the cadre of secretaries to the Government, obviously well experiencedin administrationand administrativematters." It was further observed (SCC @p.524): "17. Normally, when a specialised tribunal is constituted for dealing with disputes coming under it of a particular nature taking in serious technical aspects, the attempt must be to construe the jurisdiction conferred on it in a manner as not to frustrate the object sought to be achieved by the Act. In this context, the ousting of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court contained in Section 15 and Section 27 of the Act has also to be kept in mind. The subjectto be dealt with under the Act, has considerable technical overtones which normally a civil court, at least as of now, is ill-equipped to handle and this aspect cannot be ignored while defining the jurisdiction of the TDSAT." Viacom's casefor a mandatory interim injunction 24. Much of the argumenthas centeredaroundthe legalityof the orderof the TDSAT grantingViacom a mandatoryinteriminjunctioneven while findingtheterminationoftheMOU to be illegal.The facts relevanttothis W.P. (C) Nos. 5109,5111 and5112of2010 PageIS of37 < point may be briefly recapitulated. 25. Simultaneous with the termination of the MOU by the notice dated 13"" July 2010, Viacom18 enteredinto a separateagreementwith NMIL appointingthe latteras its aggregatorwitheffectfrom the afternoonofthe same day. As far as Viacom18 was concerned,its break-up with MSMD was irreversible one and it immediately substituted MSMD with NMIL as its agent. In other words the status quo ante the terminationwas quickly altered with a new player coming into the fray. The reaction of MSMD to this was to assert that the termination was an illegal one. MSMD issued a cease and desistnoticeto Sun 18 MediaServiceson the next day, i.e. 14"^ July 2010. MSMD evidentlywantedto continuethe situationthat existed prior to the terminationas is plain from the prayers made by it in its Section9 petitionbeforethe BombayHighCourt.That interimreliefwas, however, declined since by then Viacom18 had already entered into an agreement with NMIL. Therefore, when Viacom18 approached the TDSAT it was seeking not only to recover the amounts owed to it from MSMD but also specificallyprayedfor a permanentinjunctionto restrain MSMD from continuing to act as its agent. It also prayed for an interim relief to the above effect. 26. The questionwhethera civil courtand, in this case,the TDSATcould grant an interimmandatoryinjunctionto restrainan erstwhileagent from performingacts as if the agency continued has to be answered in the affirmative. The basis for this has been