CBNSat has released a newsletter and it is available for viewing on the following link. You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the file.
CBNSat Digital World July 2006 - The Transparency Edition
A lot of information regarding their technology used as well as the story behind the shutdown are given here.
We would like any lawyer who is a CBNSat Customer or any lawyer who is willing to help CBNSat Customers to contact cbnsat@gmail.com with your contact details immediately.
CBNSat Digital World July 2006 - The Transparency Edition
A lot of information regarding their technology used as well as the story behind the shutdown are given here.
We would like any lawyer who is a CBNSat Customer or any lawyer who is willing to help CBNSat Customers to contact cbnsat@gmail.com with your contact details immediately.
2 comments:
What is happening to the Customer get-together?? Is it confirmed for today??
If confirmed pls post the time and place.
Police wrongfully seized equipment, CBNSat tells court
By S.S. Selvanayagam
Consequent to a Writ application filed by SonicNet Technologies (Pvt) Ltd, known as CBNSat, seeking to restrain the respondents from operating their equipment, the Court of Appeal yesterday (27) issued notices on the respondents returnable for August 3.
The Bench comprised Justices K. Sripavan and Sisira de Abrew. President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva with Sugath Caldera and Riad Ameen, instructed by G.G. Arulpragasam appeared for CBNSat. President’s Counsel Palitha Kumarasinghe with Ms. Indika Idroos appeared for the respondents.
In the application, Mass Media & Information Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Attorney General, the IGP, SP A.R. Vaidyalankara, Chief Inspector U.K. Mahindadasa, Sub Inspector L. Tilak Bandara (all of the Commercial Crime Unit, CID) were cited as respondents.
The petitioner complained that on June 6, 2006 the respondent police officers wrongfully and/or unlawfully and/or illegally without any right thereto sealed and/or seized the petitioner’s equipment and prevented him from using such equipment.
It contends that at all material times it has been and is the owner and was in lawful possession of the equipment that was seized by the respondents with the claim that they did it purportedly under a Magistrate’s order.
It maintains that the Magistrate did not order and/or authorize the sealing and/or seizure of the equipment.
The petitioner is asking court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Minister, the Rupavahini Corporation and the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission to issue the necessary licenses to the petitioner to conduct the operation it began from May 2005 up to June 6, 2006.
Source:DailyMirror
Post a Comment