TECHNOBILE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD vs TRIMURTI INTERNATIONAL NETWORK & ANR on 7 May 2019

**ORDER**

**By S.K. Singh, Chairperson** – All the 5 petitions have been filed by the same petitioner who is a Multi System Operator (MSO) engaged in the business of distributing signals of various broadcasters to the cable operators and ultimately to the consumers in different parts of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent No.1 in each of the petition is a local cable operator who was affiliated to the network of the petitioner in different areas in or around Lucknow. Respondent 

No.1 is allegedly taking signals from respondent No.2 or some other MSO but without complying with the Interconnect Regulations 2012, without paying the subscription dues of the petitioner and without returning the Set-Top Boxes(STBs). The prayers are in similar terms, i.e., for paying the various amounts of outstanding charges, for return of different numbers of STBs in good working condition, for interest, *pen dente lite* and future, and for such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper.

2. Interim prayer is to restrain respondent No.1 from swapping the STBs of the petitioner with those of respondent No.2 or any other MSO, to restore the already swapped STBs at the subscribers' premises and to restrain respondent No.1 from taking signals from respondent No.2 or any other MSO till the time the Regulations of 2012 are complied, the subscription dues of the petitioner are paid and the STBs are returned in good working condition or its cost is paid by respondent No.1. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the relevant facts shall be generally from the records of B.P. No.119 of 2018 unless indicated otherwise.

3. On behalf of petitioner a stand was taken after about two months of filing of the petition that in spite of interim restraint orders, the respondent No.1 has completed the swapping of petitioner's STBs with that of others and therefore, petitioner sought urgent directions for return of STBs which appeared to be A circular stamp or seal is located at the bottom center of the page. It contains a stylized letter 'R' in the center, surrounded by a circular border. The stamp appears to be an official mark or signature.

numbering about 31546, if the numbers claimed in all the 5 petitions are added. A case of acute hardship was raised that if the STBs are not returned or its price is not awarded by way of damages etc. petitioner would suffer immensely in seeding its own STBs in the market in future. As appears from orders passed on 01.06.2018, parties were directed to complete the pleadings so that relevant issues including MAs could be considered effectively on 25.07.2018. However, the matter lingered on various dates. The issue of return of STBs was again pressed and heard on 19.12.2018. It may be noted here that in view of grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner on 16.04.2018 that in the field, swapping of STBs was going on against the interim order of this Tribunal, Mr. Nasir Hussain, Advocate was appointed as a Local Commissioner for going to the city of Lucknow to conduct field survey and submit a report. As an Advocate Commissioner, his report was taken on record on 07.05.2018. Respondent No.1 has raised some objections to the said report in its reply to an application under Section 20 of the TRAI Act. On 19.12.2018 after the parties were heard on the prayer for return of STBs at the earliest, this Tribunal recorded its view that the concerned LCOs should make an effort to see that the STBs of the petitioner are accounted for, to the best of their capacity.

4. On the next date i.e. 11.01.2019, on instructions, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 took various objections and a clear stand that respondent Nos.1 in these petitions were no longer in a position to return the STBs but the A circular stamp or seal, likely a signature or official mark, located at the bottom center of the page. It contains some internal markings that are difficult to discern, possibly initials or a logo.

petitioner could depute its men to collect the same from the subscribers' premises. A technical objection was also taken that no order for return of STBs could be made by way of interim relief because that would amount to granting a final relief in respect of STBs. The order passed on 11.01.2019 speaks for itself. It is as follows:

"Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has taken a stand on instructions that LCOs who are of the respondent no. 1 in these petitions, are no longer in a position to return the STBs to the petitioner on their own and petitioner should send its men to collect the same and respondent may give some assistance as per their capacity. This is in addition to various pleas on merits that petitioner is not the owner of the STBs and it is not entitled to return of the STBs through which it was granting signals to the customers of the respondent no. 1. One of the objections is on the ground that an interim relief in respect of return of STBs can not be granted because this will amount to granting ultimate relief in respect of the STB's.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready to go through the process of trial for adjudication of its claim for internet charges/dues but the claim for STB's is vital for its existence because STBs worth approximately Rs.4 crores are not being made available to the petitioner seriously impairing its capacity to do business with the other MSOs & LCOs.

According to petitioner, this is being done with malafide at the instance of some rival parties because STBs of the petitioner can not be of any use to respondent no. 1.

Considering the technical objection of the respondent that part of main relief can not be granted at interim stage and the need of the petitioner for urgent return of STBs or its value, we put the parties on notice that the petitions shall be finally heard in respect of STBs on the next date. For this, oral evidence in our considered view is not required, 

although respondent no. 1 claims that oral evidence is necessary. The parties are entitled to bring on record any further material which they may like to bring by way of evidence on affidavit in respect of issues relating to STBs. This should be done within three weeks.

Post the matter under the same head on 22.2.2019 for disposal of claim in respect to STBs."

5. Evidence on affidavit was brought on record on behalf of petitioner as well as respondent No.1. The issue relating to return of STBs or payment of their value by way of compensation alone was the subject matter of subsequent hearings on more than one date. The arguments were heard and order was reserved on the limited issues relating to STBs on 08.03.2019.

6. At the outset, it is noted that B.P.No.122 of 2018 does not involve any prayer for return of STBs and therefore, this order shall not affect that petition. For appreciating an issue of law raised on behalf of respondent No.1, it is further noted that there is no Interconnect Agreement between the parties in B.P. No.123 of 2018 whereas in the remaining three petitions, the written agreement between the parties admittedly existed covering different periods which may be more relevant for analysing the claim of the petitioner relating to ducs of subscription charges. Still it is noted that in B.P. No.119 of 2018 the last agreement was for the period 01.12.2017 to 30.11.2018. Same was the term of agreement in B.P. No.120 of 2018. In B.P. No.121 of 2018, the agreement was for the period 01.11.2016 to 30.11.2017. These petitions were filed in the 

first week of April, 2018 after the dispute on account of swapping had arisen in or around the previous month, i.e., in March 2018.

7. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the pleadings in the petition and particularly relied upon Para 6 to point out that along with mentioning the number of STBs, petitioner has claimed that he provided the same for deployment/installation at customers' premises. Copies of some of the Material Outgoing Challans (MOCs) to show supply of STBs to respondent No.1 have been annexed as **Annexure P-3(colly)**. Leave has been sought in that Para to collect voluminous MOCs at a later stage after they are collated. Petitioner has claimed the STBs to be its exclusive property which were provided to respondent No.1 without cost but were never sold. He referred to defence of the respondent No.1 in Para 6 of the reply where respondent No.1 has claimed that it is the petitioner who used to install and maintain the STBs at the subscribers' end directly; respondent No.1 was having no role to play in the same as it only used to collect the amount from the subscribers and pass it to the petitioner along with grievances/feedback of the subscribers. According to respondent No.1, the petitioner should be put to strict proof of the fact that STBs had been given to this respondent. In Paras 11-13, respondent No.1 has claimed that since it had nothing to do with the STBs, it is not aware about cost of STBs.

A circular stamp with a double-line border. Inside the circle, the letter 'R' is printed in a serif font. The stamp appears to be a watermark or a seal.

8. Mr.Rao then referred to Paras C, D and E of the rejoinder as well as **Annexures P-8 and P-9** to submit that respondent No.1 has taken a false plea that another cable operator, namely, Srishti Communication (Respondent No.1 in B.P. No.123 of 2018) has pushed respondent No.1 out of business. It has been shown that Mr.Anil Kapoor who actually owns and represents respondent No.1 in B.P. No.119 of 2018 through his sister, Mrs.Beena Tandon, has joined hands with proprietor of respondent No.1 in B.P. Nos.121 and 122 of 2018, Mr.Hemant Arora and the proprietor of respondent No.1 in B.P. No.123 of 2018, Mr.Asit Kapoor, to form a company, namely, Parijaat Network Pvt. Ltd. which has been appointed as the authorized distributor of respondent No.2 for the area of Lucknow. According to him, it is to harm the future prospects of the petitioner that the respondents have purposely taken false stand and not returned the STBs although these cannot be of much use to the respondents. In Para I of the rejoinder, the total number of STBs involved in B.P. Nos.119, 120, 121 and 123 of 2018 has been claimed to be 31546, valued at Rs.4,25,87,100/- @ Rs.1350/- per STB.

9. Mr. Rao has referred to MOCs which are part of **Annexure P-3(colly)** to show that petitioner had issued the STBs to respondent No.1 and as per different clauses of the agreement such as clause 2 and clause 8, the liability of respondent No.1 as cable operator was to pay a specified amount per STB and from the invoice at Pg.47 of the Evidence folder it was shown that income from 

right of use of STBs was claimed by the petitioner separately in the invoices. The claim that STBs remained the property of the petitioner has been supported by referring to clause 3(vii) where the cable operator has been forbidden not to tamper or remove the STBs without written consent of the MSO. Clause 8 has been relied upon to show that LCO had the duty of handing over a copy of the CAF which had to be submitted within 15 days of its activating a customer. According to learned senior counsel, this shows that respondent No.1 was not a mere collecting agent but was bound by various clauses of the agreement and fully associated with the customer at the grass-root level where the MSO, as per general practice, has no presence. Reliance has also been placed on clause 12 of the agreement which required that the LCO shall hand over to the MSO all properties and assets belonging to the MSO within 15 days of termination or expiry of the agreement. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that assets in the custody of the LCO would, in the circumstances, also mean and include indirect custody when such assets and properties are placed in the premises of the customer by the LCO for the purpose of business governed by the agreement.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has first taken the defence by referring to Paras 5 and 6 of the evidence on affidavit that the STBs were given to respondent No.1 free of cost. Submission is: having gifted the STBs, the petitioner cannot claim any compensation for the same. This defence ignores 

the pleadings and evidence in Para 6 that the STBs, as per petitioner, continued to remain the property of the petitioner. This, in fact, is also the stand of the respondents in their reply and also during arguments at the earlier stage when respondent No.1 offered to help the petitioner to take the STBs from the field. The other defence that respondent No.1 was only a collecting agent and that Section 70 of the Contract Act debars the petitioner from claiming anything from respondent No.1 for other works done gratuitously, is found to have no merit in view of various provisions in the agreement noticed earlier. Respondent No.1 was not a mere collecting agent but an equal party with rights and liabilities under the agreement which has not been denied, rather the agreement stands admitted by respondent No.1.

11. On behalf of respondent No.1 it has been next submitted by way of reply that petitioner has failed to make out a case that respondent No.1 has replaced the STBs of petitioner and kept those STBs with itself so as to be liable for return of the same. Realising that evidence collected by the Advocate Commissioner and his report do not support this stand, he submitted that the report cannot be treated as evidence.

12. The aforesaid reply/defence are absolutely misconceived and unacceptable. The petitioner, through pleadings and evidence has made out a case that STBs were provided to respondent No.1 not for any cost as they were not sold to respondent No.1 and they continue to remain the property of the petitioner 

which must be returned to the petitioner as per terms of the agreement and also as per provisions in Chapter 9 of the Indian Contract Act which contains various sections from 148 to 171 relating to Bailment. Section 149 treats the goods to be delivered to the bailee when it is put in the possession of intended bailee or even of any other person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Sections 160-161 require return of goods bailed and spell-out bailee's responsibility for any loss when goods are not duly returned. It has been brought to our notice that in the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it has come that one Mr.Harshit working for Mr.Anil Kapoor who works for respondent No.1, reportedly has replaced STBs of petitioner with that of Siti Cable at houses of some of the customers. It has been shown that on the MOC at Pg.34 of the brief, the number of STBs shown therein had been received by one Mr.Harshit.

13. On considering the pleadings and all the evidence, as well as overall circumstances, there is no difficulty in holding that the defence raised by respondent No.1 is devoid of merits. Except vaguely denying all the documents such as challans but not the agreement, respondent No.1 has failed to support its case that it was a mere collecting agent. Under the agreement it had received STBs from the petitioner which it was bound to return and admittedly it has failed to return the same. Even if the assets and properties in clause 12 of the agreement have not been clearly defined, there is no difficulty in holding on facts that STBs in this case have remained the assets of the petitioner given in A circular stamp or seal is located at the bottom center of the page. It contains some internal markings that are difficult to discern, possibly initials or a logo, but it appears to be an official mark or signature stamp.

the custody of respondent No.1. It is a well-known practice in the trade and business of cable operators that they maintain contact with the customers at the grass-root level and not the MSO. Hence, the defence of respondent No.1 is found absolutely false and unacceptable so far as STBs are concerned. Respondent No.1 is, therefore, liable to return the number of STBs which were issued to it through MOC at least in B.P. Nos.119, 120 and 121 of 2018. If the respondent No.1 fails to return the required number of STBs, it will have to pay the value thereof which requires determination. So far as B.P.No.123 of 2018 is concerned it requires further consideration in view of a legal objection raised on behalf of respondent No.1 that no relief can be granted in this petition because admittedly there was no written Interconnection Agreement for supply of signals. This plea has been raised on the basis of judgment of this Tribunal in **B.P. No.611 of 2015 (UCN Cable Network India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Raj Cable Network & Ors.)** decided on 10.05.2016.

14. In the **UCN Cable(supra.)** case, the main issue as noted in Para 1 was – "whether a proceeding for recovery of money due for supply of TV signals is maintainable under Section 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India 1997 in the absence of a written Interconnect Agreement between the parties." On behalf of the petitioners in that case, reliance was placed upon Section 70 of the Contract Act and judgment of the Supreme Court in **State of West Bengal Vs. B.K. Mondal & Sons; AIR 1962 SC 779** to submit that even in absence of 

a valid and binding contract, the plaintiff can claim compensation for what has been lawfully done or supplied by him to the defendant, by way of compensation, provided the act of doing or delivering was not gratuitous. Besides, relying upon some other Supreme Court judgments, petitioners in that case also relied upon a judgment of this Tribunal rendered by the then Chairperson, in the case of **S.R. Cable Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulab Chand Panjre [Petition No.46(C) of 2012 decided on 18.10.2012]** whereunder Sections 65 and 70 of the Indian Contract Act were relied upon to grant relief to the petitioner on the basis of doctrine of restitution, even in absence of an agreement.

15. The judgment shows that the argument advanced on behalf of respondent was that the plaintiff's act cannot be treated as lawful, which is essential for a valid agreement; and not restitution or compensation can be awarded if the agreement is unlawful or if something is done unlawful in violation of express provisions of law. Judgments in support of this proposition were also noticed. The Tribunal ultimately held that since the relevant clause 4A in the Regulations clearly states that it shall be mandatory for the parties concerned to reduce the terms and conditions of all their interconnection agreements to writing, in a case where there was no written agreement between the parties, the services provided would not be lawful and therefore, in such a situation the petition for recovery of money for supply of TV signals would not be 

maintainable. No doubt in Para 46, it was held that the interim order for return of large number of STBs could not have been passed because the petition claiming money on account of interconnection without a written interconnection agreement shall not be maintainable and further observed in Para 47, that in the absence of an agreement in writing, neither the claim for recovery of money dues nor the claim for return of STBs would be maintainable. But after this, it was further clarified thus:

"In some cases, even the STBs may be supplied under an altogether separate agreement. The issue of maintainability of a claim for return of STBs is left open in cases where the claimant is able to show that STBs were supplied, not a part of the interconnect arrangement but clearly and distinctly under a separate agreement."

16. Relying upon the aforesaid extract in Para 47, learned counsel for the respondent in B.P. No.123 of 2018 has submitted that although the issue of maintainability of a claim for return of STBs was left open even in cases where there was no interconnect agreement but it was made clear that there must be a separate agreement which should also be a written agreement and not based upon conduct or other documents. Since there is no separate written agreement for supply of STBs, it has been submitted that the petition must be held to be not maintainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that unless the aforesaid judgment in the case of **UCN Cable(supra.)** is reversed, in absence of a written agreement, no doubt, claim for recovery of 

money by way of interconnect fees/charges would not be maintainable but this law would not and cannot apply to a claim for return of STBs in view of the very logic adopted in that judgment that since interconnection agreement has to be in writing as per mandate of the Regulations, supply of signals would not be lawful for application of Section 70 of the Contract Act in absence of a written agreement. Learned counsel pointed out that there is no provision in the relevant Regulations so as to prohibit supply of STBs under any arrangement other than a written agreement. Since, the requirement of written agreement in the Regulations is confined to interconnection agreement; the maintainability of claim for return of STBs was rightly left open because this Tribunal has plenary powers and jurisdiction of civil court to decide all civil disputes between service providers including a claim for return of STBs. Providing STBs under any arrangement without a written interconnect agreement does not violate the mandate of Regulations or any law and therefore, this Tribunal cannot and should not limit its jurisdiction by declaring such claim to be not maintainable.

17. In our considered view the issue of claim for STBs will stand on a different footing than the claim for money for providing signals without any written interconnection agreement. In the latter eventuality, Section 70 has been held by this Tribunal to be non-applicable because the supply of signals is rendered unlawful but no such illegality is involved when STBs or other assets are claimed by one service provider against another because the Regulations or the law does not mandate that there must be a written agreement even for such supplies. Hence, the legal objection raised on behalf of Respondent No.1 in B.P. No.123 of 2018 to the prayer/claim for return of STBs or compensation thereof is found to be without any merits. So far as merits of such claim is concerned, the materials in this petition are also same and it is found fit to be accepted.

18. As in other 3 petitions, in this petition also, similar relief in respect of STBs is required to be granted, but on the basis of Section 70 of the Contract Act and theory of restitution. We order accordingly.

19. The last task is to ascertain the number of STBs in these 4 petitions which are required to be returned by respondent No.1 and the value of these STBs which respondent No.1 shall have to pay if the STBs are not returned. The task of determining the number of STBs to be returned is not very difficult because although the number of STBs claimed by the petitioner in these petitions through pleadings and evidence has not been seriously contested except by bald denial, the petitioner itself has disclosed through a chart that the total number of STBs as per MOCs annexed to the affidavit in the 4 petitions comes to 30986, out of which only 24 are HD STBs and the rest are SD STBs. The number of SD STBs for which there is no signed acknowledgement is 2373 and the 

number of HD STBs not backed by signed acknowledgment is 8. The chart reads as follows:

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Petition No.</th> <th>Name of Res. No.1</th> <th>Total No.of STBs as per MOCs annexed to the affidavit</th> <th>No.of SD STBs as per MOCs annexed to the affidavit</th> <th>No.of HD STBs as per MOCs annexed to the affidavit</th> <th>No.of SD STBs not having signed acknowledgment</th> <th>No.of HD STBs not having signed acknowledgment</th> <th>No.of SD STBs having signed acknowledgment</th> <th>No.of HD STBs having signed acknowledgment</th> <th>Total No.of STBs having signed acknowledgments</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>119 /18</td> <td>Trimurti International Network</td> <td>13646</td> <td>13622</td> <td>24</td> <td>131</td> <td>8</td> <td>13491</td> <td>16</td> <td>13507</td> </tr> <tr> <td>120 /18</td> <td>Trimurti Vishwadarshan Network</td> <td>3160</td> <td>3160</td> <td>0</td> <td>1980</td> <td>0</td> <td>1180</td> <td>0</td> <td>1180</td> </tr> <tr> <td>121 /18</td> <td>Manorjanjan Cable TV Network</td> <td>13150</td> <td>13150</td> <td>0</td> <td>112</td> <td>0</td> <td>13038</td> <td>0</td> <td>13038</td> </tr> <tr> <td>123 /18</td> <td>Shristi Communication Network</td> <td>1030</td> <td>1030</td> <td></td> <td>150</td> <td>0</td> <td>880</td> <td>0</td> <td>880</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td>30986</td> <td>30962</td> <td>0</td> <td>2373</td> <td>8</td> <td>28589</td> <td>16</td> <td>28605</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

20. It would be proper and safe to accept only those numbers of SD and HD STBs which are supported by signed acknowledgement. On that basis, the respondent No.1 is directed to return 13491 SD STBs and 16 HD STBs in B.P. No.119 of 2018; 1180 SD STBs only in B.P. No.120 of 2018; 13038 SD STBs only in B.P. No.121 of 2018 and 880 SD STBs only in B.P. No.123 of 2018. The STBs as ordered above should be returned in working condition. The return should be against receipt from the petitioner or its representative, within 

four weeks failing which respondent No.1 in these petitions will be liable to compensate the petitioner by paying the money value of the STBs.

21. Having accepted the aforesaid quantity/number of the STBs, the next task is how much compensation for each STB would be just and fair payment to the petitioner if the STB is not returned. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the STBs have been in use for three years or more and therefore, they would be hardly of any worth on account of depreciation. This has been seriously contested by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of **Dhiyan Singh Sobha Singh & Anr. Vs. UOI; AIR 1958 SC 274** and a Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta dated 05.05.2015 in **F.A. No.48 of 2010, Sunita Tannery & Ors. Vs. Beekay Niryat (P) Ltd.** which has followed the judgment of Apex Court in the case of **Dhiyan Singh(supra.)** and has attained finality because Special Leave Petition against the Calcutta High Court judgment has been shown to have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.07.2015.

22. In **Dhiyan Singh's case (supra.)**, the defendant as a bailee wrongfully retained trucks of the plaintiff and did not return till the date of judgment. The trucks were of 1938 model. They were given to the defendant on hire through an agreement in 1942. In that very year the agreement was terminated by the defendant but the trucks were never returned. In the suit, the plaintiffs were 

awarded the cost of the trucks at Rs.3,500/- as claimed in the notice under Section 80 of the CPC along with rent till the date of filing of the suit and interest. In appeal, the plaintiffs claimed a much higher amount as the market value of the trucks and also furnished court fee for such a higher claim. Since, the price of the trucks had considerably appreciated and had at least doubled during the pendency of the suit, the Supreme Court on the basis of evidence to that effect held that the plaintiff was entitled to the enhanced value of trucks. Relying upon Paras 46, 50 and 52, it has been submitted that as per Salmond's view extracted in Para 46, the assessment of the value of the goods is required to be done in order to arrive at the true value (underling is ours) of the property which the plaintiff has lost. On that basis in subsequent paras, the Apex Court held that in cases of wrongful detention the plaintiff is entitled, if the goods are not redelivered, to payment of the value of the goods at the date of the verdict of the judgment.

23. In our considered view, the value of the goods in case of wrongful detention and non-return by the defendant must be the true value as per loss of the plaintiffs. It is nobody's case that the STBs were not in use for the purpose of the business of the petitioner. For the same very purpose, he would now have to purchase same number of STBs as per price prevailing now at the time of judgment. In that view of the matter and in absence of any other valuation of the STBs on record, the respondent No.1 in these petitions is held liable for 

paying the cost of the STBs in case of non-return, at the rate of purchase already noticed earlier as per evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner. For clarity it is reiterated that the liability for paying the money value would be @ Rs.1350/- each STB, as claimed in Para I of the rejoinder which is lowest considering the rates claimed in evidence folder and other documents placed before the Bench.. On the basis of such a cost, the liability of respondent No.1 in these petitions would be as follows:

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>S.No.</th> <th>Petition</th> <th>Description &amp; rate</th> <th>Amount(Rs.)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>B.P. No.119 of 2018</td> <td>(i)13491 SD STBs and<br/>(ii) 16 HD STBs<br/><br/>All @ Rs.1350/- per STB</td> <td>1,82,34,450.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>B.P. No.120 of 2018</td> <td>1180 SD STBs @<br/>Rs.1350/- per STB</td> <td>15,93,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>B.P. No.121 of 2018</td> <td>13038 SD STBs @<br/>Rs.1350/- per STB</td> <td>1,76,01,300.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>B.P. No.123 of 2018</td> <td>880 SD STBs @<br/>Rs.1350/- per STB</td> <td>11,88,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3" style="text-align: right;"><b>Total</b></td> <td><b>3,86,16,750.00</b></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

24. In case of non-return of STBs by respondent No.1 within the stipulated time, the above amount shall be paid by respondent No.1 within a further period of two weeks. If the amount is not paid within the time indicated, the petitioner would be at liberty to initiate execution proceedings to realise the amount along with future interest @ 9% per annum. A partial decree on the basis of this order 

shall be prepared by the Registry at an early date and preferably within four weeks.

- 25. The other issues in these petitions shall be considered and decided after further hearing in due course. List the matters before learned Registrar on 03.07.2019 for passing necessary orders/directions to ensure that the petitions are made ready for hearing at an early date.

A circular seal containing a large, stylized letter 'R' in the center. The seal is rendered in a stippled or textured style.

..... (S.K. Singh, J) Chairperson

..... (A.K. Bhargava) Member

This image is a scan of a blank white piece of paper. It contains no text, figures, or tables. There are a few very small, faint dark specks scattered across the page, which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust particles.