In a petition filed on Monday, SitiCable said it was legally wrong to implicate its name because it does not directly run a network. The company operates through joint venture partners. If there is any copyright violation, it has to be filed against the joint venture company, SitiCable has contested.

"The court order has not taken into account the operational structure of the network. No cable TV network is directly operated by SitiCable," a source in the company said.

Though SitiCable is a shareholder in such partnerships, these are separate joint venture companies. The court should take the real structure of SitiCable management into account, SitiCable has contested. The case will come up for hearing in August.

Nine leading Hollywood companies including 20th Century Fox, ColumbiaPictures, Time Warner Entertainment and Disney Enterprises had moved the Delhi high court against unauthorised exhibition of their films by the two largest cable TV operators - SitiCable and IN Cablenet. The court, in an order on July 7, had restrained the two operators from telecasting the films made by the Hollywood companies on their cable networks and directed the police to provide necessary assistance in execution of the order.

"The defendant and its proprietors, partners, directors, employees, servants, agents, representatives, franchisees, distributors and assigns, head-ends and line orders are restrained from communicating to the public either by means of cable, wire or by wireless diffusion, telecasting or broadcasting on the cable network or otherwise in any other manner infringing the copyright in any cinematography film the copyright in which vest with the plaintiffs without the written authorisation from the plaintiffs," the court had ruled.

The two multiple system operators had, after thecourt order, informed their distributors and joint venture partners not to air the Hollywood movies. Said IN Network spokesperson Hima Mehta, "respecting the rights of these Hollywood movie houses, we have reiterated to all our head-ends across the country to abide by the Delhi high court order." SitiCable, it is reliably learnt, had written to its Mumbai officials to inform its joint venture partners not to telecast such movies.

SitiCable feels that the Hollywood film production houses, in their petition, should not have referred the MSO's name. Said DK Pandey, senior vice-president, SitiCable Network Ltd, "why should the SitiCable name be dragged along. We only provide the equipment and finance and select the joint venture partner. We help in the formation of a private limited company." The newly-formed company had its own board of directors and management team who were responsible for their operations, Pandey added.