MNP INTERCONNECTION TELECOM SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR

1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
th
Dated 16 October, 2026
M.A. No. 253 of 2026
In
Broadcasting Petition No. 659 of 2021

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited …Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Ganpati Digital Network …Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER

For Petitioner : Ms Payal Kakra, Ms Tanya Gupta, Mr Pranav,
Mr Pranjal Singh, Advocates
For Respondent No. 2 : Ms Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Mr. Vikrant
Kumar, Ms Pratibha Singh, Advocates

ORDER
1. This application, under Section 16 of the TRAI Act, has been moved by
Petitioner, with a contention that present Petition, was instituted
against M/s Ganpati Digital Network, proprietorship firm, with whom

2

relevant Interconnect Agreement, was got executed by Petitioner,
where from outstanding liabilities stood arose, against Respondent
and relief was prayed.

2. This was a Petition, in terms of Order XXX Rule 10 CPC, bonafidely
without impleading the proprietor of above concern, on 22.11.2021,
wherein, service through Speed Post, was made on 19.01.2022. As
none appeared on above date, further date 24.03.2022 was fixed.
From the ground information, it came to know that Shri Viresh Tomar,
proprietor of Respondent concern, had expired on 20.04.2021, but,
Respondent proprietary firm, was being run and operated by his son,
Mr Vishant Tomar with support of other legal heirs. Hence, this fact
was brought in the notice of Tribunal, on 24.03.2022. The notice was
got issued to legal heirs of Mr Viresh Tomar, original proprietor. Even
this Tribunal got service of notice, made through Police mode, and in
compliance to same, on 25.01.2023 appearance through a Counsel
was there, who sought time to file reply in the Broadcasting Petition,
and this was granted and date 17.05.2023 was fixed for further
hearing. Counsel appearing on 17.05.2023, requested one day’s time
to file reply, wherein reply by Mr Vishant Tomar, son of Late Viresh

3

Tomar, mentioning him as a sole proprietor of Respondent, concern,
Ganpati Digital Networks, got filed. Rejoinder to it, was filed by
Petitioner, and it was specifically denied that Petition was got filed,
against a dead person. Rather, the factum of death of sole proprietor
Mr. Viresh Tomar was never communicated to Petitioner. Rather,
proprietorship concern, having business in its own name continued to
conduct routine business, of the Petitioner, vide same email id, raised
no point of suspicion. But, when a Criminal proceeding was taken and
an application, under Section 20 of the TRAI Act, bearing MA No. 233
of 2023 was got filed, this point was raised in a Writ Petition before
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in WP (C) No. 38090/ 2023 wherein the
direction for disposing the matter, within stipulated period was given,
and this Tribunal raised a preliminary issue, with regard to
maintainability of this Petition, in respect of specific mention that
Respondent was dead prior to filing of present Petition. While arguing
on this point, this was argued by Learned Counsel for Mr. Vishant
Tomar on 10.07.2026, for the first time, that he is not the sole
proprietor of Respondent proprietorship concern, which was against
the previous reply, and its verification by Mr Vishant Tomar. Then this
Tribunal vide order, dated 10.07.2026 directed Mr Vishant Tomar to

4

file an affidavit and this affidavit was got filed on 23.07.2026, with a
prayer to recall the previous contention of being sole proprietor in
reply, as well as verification clause. Hence, this application with above
prayer for allowing Petitioner – Applicant to file the amended memo
of parties, for bringing on record the legal representatives of Late Shri
Viresh Tomar, erstwhile proprietor of M/s Ganpati Digital Network in
the present proceeding.

3. Reply, is with that that since challenge with regard to filing of this
Petition against a dead person Viresh Tomar, as previously been made,
and Vishant Tomar had challenged the maintainability of this Petition,
and as the law is settled one, that where a proceeding has been
instituted against a sole defendant, who had died before the
institution of proceeding, the same is a nullity from inception and
cannot subsequently, be revived by substituting its legal
representatives. This application is a belated attempt to cure a defect,
which existed on the date of institution of present Petition, which is
not permitted.

5

4. The rejoinder, is with same contention of Petition, as well as
application and negation of the contention of reply.


5. Heard Learned Counsels for both side and gone through material
placed on record.

6. Under Order XXX Rule 10 of CPC, a suit may be filed against a name in
which any person is running a business organisation. It will not be a
partnership firm or a Company. The same may happen in case of Hindu
Undivided Family(HUF) and the rules given under Order XXX of CPC,
relating to registered firm or any corporation, will be applicable for the
business name entity, and in the present, Petition has been filed
against Ganpati Digital Network, the name and style in which
proprietor, Viresh Tomar was performing its business and in whose
name Interconnect Agreement was got executed. Hence, the relief
claimed in main Petition, is against the business name entity and the
above business name entity is not a dead person. Rather, it was Viresh
Tomar who had died, and the same is being said to be under bonafide
belief of the Petitioner, because the relationship continued in the
same name, and through same email address by Vishant Tomar, the

6

elder son of Viresh Tomar, and this Vishant Tomar in his reply to the
Petition, as well as in its verification clause, as well as in affidavit
annexing it, had claimed to be sole proprietor of that business name
entity. It was never a Petition filed, against a dead person, as is being
said by Vishant Tomar, in its counter to Petition, as well as in Writ filed
before Allahabad High Court. As now, the contention is that
Respondent business name entity was succeeded by all legal heirs of
Late Viresh Tomar, sole proprietor, hence, all legal heirs are to be
added as array of Respondent, in present proceeding, for making just
and equitable adjudication in the matter. This application is with all
bonafide and merit. Hence, is being allowed.


7. The amendment be incorporated in main Petition in Red Ink and
amended memo of the parties be placed on record.

8. Learned Counsel for Respondent mentioned that each of the LRs,
being added as present, is needed to be issued with notice, for filing
their reply in the matter.

7

9. As Petition was got filed against business name entity, under Order
XXX Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, wherein, service by way of
Police Mode specifying each of the LRs of deceased was got made,
Vishant Tomar had appeared. He had filed its reply. He had claimed
himself to be sole proprietor, hence, the adult family member is with
proper service, and knowledge. Hence, there is no need of issuing a
service again to other added Respondents. But, however an
opportunity for filing reply, if any, to them will be in the interest of
justice. Accordingly, the reply, if any, to the Petition by those added
Respondents, after exchange with Petitioner, may be got filed within
four weeks. Replication to it after exchange with may be filed within
two weeks thereafter.


10. List the matter on 10.12.2026 “for further hearing”.

11. As was directed by Hon’ble Court for deciding the matter with regard
to maintainability, because of said to have been filed against dead
person, stood disposed of with above finding and decision written
supra.

…...……………..

8

(Justice Ram Krishna Gautam)
Member
16.10.2026
/BN/