Srinagar Court Denies Protection To Cable Operator Against JioStar, Cites Suppression Of Piracy FIR, Illegal Broadcast Of Pakistani Channels

A Srinagar court has vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction that was granted to a local cable operator against JioStar India Private Limited, holding that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts including lawful disconnection of signals due to non-payment of dues exceeding ₹2 crore, pendency of criminal proceedings for piracy, and illegal retransmission of banned Pakistani channels. The court reiterated that a party seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands.The Court of Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Srinagar, was hearing an application for interim relief in a civil suit filed by M/s Site Entertainment Network (SEN), a Srinagar-based cable operator, seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and partition against JioStar India Private Limited, M/S Take 1 JK Media Pvt. Ltd., and an individual. The plaintiff had obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on January 20, 2026, directing parties to maintain status quo.Vacating the Stay Judge Kamiya Singh Andotra observed, “It is trite in law that for grant of temporary injunction, the party seeking the same must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favour, and irreparable injury. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.”The plaintiff remained absent on the date of hearing. Defendant No.1 (JioStar India Private Limited) was represented by Mr. Areeb Javaid Kawoosa.Background:The plaintiff cable operator stated that it had been carrying on a lawful, licensed cable business for over two decades. It alleged that from January 1, 2026, the defendants had engaged in a coordinated campaign of harassment, criminal trespass, and unlawful interference aimed at forcibly disrupting and taking over its network. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on January 20, 2026, directing parties to maintain status quo.JioStar filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff had no privity of contract with it, that the plaintiff's arrangement was solely with defendant No.2 (Take One JK Media Pvt. Ltd.), and that the signals of defendant No.2 had been lawfully disconnected with effect from December 1, 2025, due to persistent default and non-payment of dues exceeding ₹2 crore. JioStar further submitted that criminal proceedings, including FIR No.63/2025 at Police Station Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar, were pending against the plaintiff and defendant No.2 for unauthorized retransmission of channels and piracy.The FIR lodged at Shaheed Gunj Police Station, following a complaint by JioStar, invokes sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for theft of broadcast signals, and provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 for broadcast reproduction rights violations and unauthorized circumvention of technical protection measures. Police seized amplifiers, consumer-grade set-top boxes, and other transmission equipment, which were being used to relay pay channels by bypassing authorized systems.National Security Dimension And Regulatory FrameworkThe court noted a communication issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, to the District Magistrate, Srinagar, recording that the alleged acts of illegal transmission and re-transmission of unencrypted DTH signals by the plaintiff and its affiliate posed a “potential threat to national security” and were in violation of the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.The court further noted that JioStar had issued a notice to the plaintiff alleging unauthorized transmission of its pay TV channels, including premium channels such as “Star Plus HD” and “Colors HD”, through DTH consumer set-top boxes in unencrypted form, in violation of the post-digitization regime effective from April 1, 2017, and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Interconnection Regulations, 2017. The plaintiff's conduct, the court observed, pointed towards systematic under-declaration of subscribers and unauthorized commercial exploitation of copyrighted content.Findings On Suppression And Unclean HandsThe court found that the plaintiff had failed to disclose several material facts like the lawful disconnection of defendant No.2's signals from December 1, 2025, due to non-payment of dues; the pendency of FIR No.63/2025 and the communication issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case, as there existed no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Observing that the balance of convenience did not lie in the plaintiff's favour, having hidden various facts from the court the court added that the plaintiff, having approached the court with suppressed material facts and unclean hands, was not entitled to any equitable...

Srinagar Court Denies Protection To Cable Operator Against JioStar, Cites Suppression Of Piracy FIR, Illegal Broadcast Of Pakistani Channels

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags