Category: High Court

Hearing of DAS cases in Delhi HC put off to Oct

NEW DELHI: The hearing of the first bunch of cases relating to the stay orders on Phase III of Digital Addressable System has been adjourned by the Delhi High Court to 5 October as the court did not assemble after the lunch break.

The cases were listed before Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, who is also scheduled to hear on 13 September three more cases including that of Home Systems Pvt Ltd of Mumbai and another by Digiana Pvt Ltd which have been transferred to the Court.

The application by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) for being impleaded in the case also did not come up for hearing. However, it is expected that this may be mentioned on 13 September.

Some of the cases scheduled for hearing today included the Rohtak Cable Operators’ Association, Andhra Pradesh MSOs Welfare Federation, Multi System Operators’ Welfare Association, Sai Big Star Welfare Association, Sree Devi Digital Systems, Federation of Telangana MSO, DEN Manoranjan Satellite, Victory Digital, Sri Chowdeshwary Cable Network, Shyam Baba Cable Network, Panchajanya Media, Bharat Digital Cable Network, Nashik Zilla Cable Operators Association, Bhima Riddhi Digital Services and Yogesh Cable Networks.

A total of 62 cases had been filed by multi-system operators (MSOs) in various courts for extension in the deadline of Phase lll. Of these, 12 cases had been disposed of by respective courts and three cases had been withdrawn by the petitioners.

In the 16th Task Force meeting, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry (MIB) had for the first time admitted that the Law Ministry had observed that the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court staying Phase III “appears to have all lndia applicability”.

(The Ministry had sought this opinion in view of the Bombay High Court making a reference to the Kusum Ingots case which had said that if one high court gives an order, others can give similar orders if similar circumstances exist. indiantelevision.com had reported in January this year that the MIB had told the Punjab and Haryana high court that it had ‘decided not to press the requirement of having a STB as for now till the decision of the cases which are pending before various other high courts’).

The meeting had been told that there were no cases in twenty states but the MIB was not in a position to issue orders in view of the advice given by the law ministry.

Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.

Cases are pending in the High Courts of Bombay, Hyderabad (with separate petitions for Telengana and Andhra Pradesh), Allahabad, Assam, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh for the entire states, apart from Tamil Nadu where prolonged legal cases have been pending since Phase I.

In Karnataka, three individual stakeholders got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay.

September 7, 2016
All Phase III DAS cases to be heard by Delhi High Court early next month

NEW DELHI: The Babus in the Information and Broadcasting Ministry would certainly breathe a sigh of relief with Dellhi High Court having fixed the hearing of the large volume of cases relating to the third phase of digital addressable system pending in different High Courts for early next month.

Although the last Task Force Meeting of 26 July had been informed that the cases would be heard from 13 September 2016, Indian Broadcasting Foundation sources told indiantelevision.com that these have been pre-poned to 7 and 8 September 2016. Notices have already been issued to the Ministry as well as the petitioners in various cases.

While a bulk of the cases will be heard on the first day by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, two cases which had been heard by Division Benches in the High Courts – Digiana Systems and Om Network – will be heard on 8 September by a division bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangeeta Dhingra. .

The single-bench cases include those by AP MSOs Welfare Federation, Federation of Telangana MSO, Bhima Riddhi Digital Services, Multi System Operator Welfare Association, Rohtak Cable Operators Association, Sai Big Star Welfare Association, Shyam Baba Cable Network, Bharat Digital Cable Network, Nashik Zilla Cable Operators Association and Yogesh Cable Networks.

This follows acceptance of a petition by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to the Supreme Court asking it to transfer all linked cases to one High Court to ensure faster justice.

The Task Force meeting had been informed that a total of 62 cases had been filed in different Courts and 29 cases had been transferred by various courts to Delhi by July-end. There were no such cases in twenty states, the Task Force was told. Of the 62 cases, 12 had been disposed off by respective courts and 3 cases had been withdrawn by the petitioners.

While the Andhra Pradesh and Telengana High Court had given orders extending the deadline of 31 December 2015 for Phase III, the Bombay High Court had referred to the Kusum Ingots judgment which had said that if similar situation prevails in all states, then the stay can be pan-India. This was because the plea taken in all High Courts was shortage of set top boxes.

But for the first time, the Ministry had admitted that the Law Ministry had observed that the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court staying Phase III “appears to have all lndia applicability”. For that reason, the I and B Ministry had in fact asked its counsel not to oppose the stay or extension orders in the High Courts.

indiantelevision.com had reported in January this year that the MIB had told the Punjab and Haryana high court that it had ‘decided not to press the requirement of having a STB as for now till the decision of the cases which are pending before various other high courts’

However, the Ministry later approached the apex court with a plea for transfer of all similar cases to one High Court and the apex court had asked Delhi to handle these cases and directed notices to be sent to all other High Courts to forward the files to Delhi.

The I and B Ministry will attempt to get a vacation of stay or extension of deadline in the various courts. The Ministry may also attempt to get orders directing all broadcasters, multi-system operators and local cable operators to transmit or receive signals only on signing of inter-connect agreements as stipulated by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.

Meanwhile, Secretary Ajay Mittal in the last Task Force meeting reiterated that it was firm on Phase IV of digital addressable systems for cable television to commence on 31 December this year.

He cautioned that MSOs and LCOs should desist from transmitting or re-transmitting un-authorized TV channels which are not permitted by the Ministry. He informed that the Ministry has written to all the district collectors/magistrates in this regard to take action under the law against those who are violating the law.

August 24, 2016
All Phase III DAS cases to be heard by Delhi High Court early next month

NEW DELHI: The Babus in the Information and Broadcasting Ministry would certainly breathe a sigh of relief with Dellhi High Court having fixed the hearing of the large volume of cases relating to the third phase of digital addressable system pending in different High Courts for early next month.

Although the last Task Force Meeting of 26 July had been informed that the cases would be heard from 13 September 2016, Indian Broadcasting Foundation sources told indiantelevision.com that these have been pre-poned to 7 and 8 September 2016. Notices have already been issued to the Ministry as well as the petitioners in various cases.

While a bulk of the cases will be heard on the first day by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, two cases which had been heard by Division Benches in the High Courts – Digiana Systems and Om Network – will be heard on 8 September by a division bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangeeta Dhingra. .

The single-bench cases include those by AP MSOs Welfare Federation, Federation of Telangana MSO, Bhima Riddhi Digital Services, Multi System Operator Welfare Association, Rohtak Cable Operators Association, Sai Big Star Welfare Association, Shyam Baba Cable Network, Bharat Digital Cable Network, Nashik Zilla Cable Operators Association and Yogesh Cable Networks.

This follows acceptance of a petition by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to the Supreme Court asking it to transfer all linked cases to one High Court to ensure faster justice.

The Task Force meeting had been informed that a total of 62 cases had been filed in different Courts and 29 cases had been transferred by various courts to Delhi by July-end. There were no such cases in twenty states, the Task Force was told. Of the 62 cases, 12 had been disposed off by respective courts and 3 cases had been withdrawn by the petitioners.

While the Andhra Pradesh and Telengana High Court had given orders extending the deadline of 31 December 2015 for Phase III, the Bombay High Court had referred to the Kusum Ingots judgment which had said that if similar situation prevails in all states, then the stay can be pan-India. This was because the plea taken in all High Courts was shortage of set top boxes.

But for the first time, the Ministry had admitted that the Law Ministry had observed that the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court staying Phase III “appears to have all lndia applicability”. For that reason, the I and B Ministry had in fact asked its counsel not to oppose the stay or extension orders in the High Courts.

indiantelevision.com had reported in January this year that the MIB had told the Punjab and Haryana high court that it had ‘decided not to press the requirement of having a STB as for now till the decision of the cases which are pending before various other high courts’

However, the Ministry later approached the apex court with a plea for transfer of all similar cases to one High Court and the apex court had asked Delhi to handle these cases and directed notices to be sent to all other High Courts to forward the files to Delhi.

The I and B Ministry will attempt to get a vacation of stay or extension of deadline in the various courts. The Ministry may also attempt to get orders directing all broadcasters, multi-system operators and local cable operators to transmit or receive signals only on signing of inter-connect agreements as stipulated by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.

Meanwhile, Secretary Ajay Mittal in the last Task Force meeting reiterated that it was firm on Phase IV of digital addressable systems for cable television to commence on 31 December this year.

He cautioned that MSOs and LCOs should desist from transmitting or re-transmitting un-authorized TV channels which are not permitted by the Ministry. He informed that the Ministry has written to all the district collectors/magistrates in this regard to take action under the law against those who are violating the law.

August 24, 2016
Ad cap & linked case put off to Sept; court to hear plea against stay order

NEW DELHI: With no resolution in sight to the imbroglio relating to adcaps on television channels, the Delhi High Court has adjourned the hearing one more time, this time to September 29, 2016.

The matter had earlier been put off on May 13, 2016 to today by chief justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath as they did not have time to hear the matter in view of part-heard cases.

When the case comes up next, court is also expected to take up an application by intervenor Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

In the hearing on March 29, 2016, a plea was made on behalf of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour.

On May 13, 2016, the court had agreed to take up at the next hearing for vacation of stay. The court had on February 11, 2016 had also agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

Earlier on November 27, 2105, the court chaired by the chief justice, had said the matter had been pending for some time and, therefore, it would hear and conclude the case in the next hearing. On that day, MIB had informed the court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour. This was the first time that the ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the NBA against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and others.

The case, filed by NBA and others against TRAI and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

The court has already directed that the order that TRAI would not take any action against any channel pending the petition would continue. In an earlier hearing, the court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamorus, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

Meanwhile, the separate petition filed in the High Court by Vikki Choudhry and Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd., which too will be heard on the next date in September, seeks to charge MIB with dereliction of its duties to take action against offending pay TV broadcasters for violating the terms and conditions of the licenses/permission for Uplinking and Downlinking.

The Court had in June asked the Ministry to file its reply in four weeks. Notice was issued only to the Ministry, although the petition also listed several other broadcasting companies as respondents.

ALSO READ

Ad cap case put off to 1 August, court to hear plea challenging stay order

Ad cap case adjourned till 15 July

August 2, 2016
Ad cap & linked case put off to Sept; court to hear plea against stay order

NEW DELHI: With no resolution in sight to the imbroglio relating to adcaps on television channels, the Delhi High Court has adjourned the hearing one more time, this time to September 29, 2016.

The matter had earlier been put off on May 13, 2016 to today by chief justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath as they did not have time to hear the matter in view of part-heard cases.

When the case comes up next, court is also expected to take up an application by intervenor Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

In the hearing on March 29, 2016, a plea was made on behalf of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour.

On May 13, 2016, the court had agreed to take up at the next hearing for vacation of stay. The court had on February 11, 2016 had also agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

Earlier on November 27, 2105, the court chaired by the chief justice, had said the matter had been pending for some time and, therefore, it would hear and conclude the case in the next hearing. On that day, MIB had informed the court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour. This was the first time that the ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the NBA against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and others.

The case, filed by NBA and others against TRAI and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

The court has already directed that the order that TRAI would not take any action against any channel pending the petition would continue. In an earlier hearing, the court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamorus, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

Meanwhile, the separate petition filed in the High Court by Vikki Choudhry and Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd., which too will be heard on the next date in September, seeks to charge MIB with dereliction of its duties to take action against offending pay TV broadcasters for violating the terms and conditions of the licenses/permission for Uplinking and Downlinking.

The Court had in June asked the Ministry to file its reply in four weeks. Notice was issued only to the Ministry, although the petition also listed several other broadcasting companies as respondents.

ALSO READ

Ad cap case put off to 1 August, court to hear plea challenging stay order

Ad cap case adjourned till 15 July

August 2, 2016
Delhi HC directs Stracon India to pay Rs 7.31 crore to DD for Sharjah Cup 1999

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has affirmed that Stracon India Ltd owes a sum of Rs 7.31 crore to Prasar Bharati towards revenue earned for the Sharjah Cup 1999 between India and Pakistan.

Although an arbitrator had announced an award and a single judge had given a decision, the matter came before a division bench because of an appeal by Stracon India.

Dismissing the appeal, Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Mukta Gupta in their order of 14 March 2016 made available to indiantelevision.com today noted that: “If the learned Arbitrator who authored the award dated 14 March 2014 or the learned Single Judge who has pronounced the decision dated 1 October 2014 had been clear in their reasoning, a simple issue would not have seen so complicated.”

The Court noted that the Arbitrator had awarded Rs 7.31 crores. However, the judges regretted that the Arbitrator had not done the simple analysis of the pleadings but “left the award with the pleadings being simply noted”.

The Court said: “In this context it assumes importance that the appellant had issued cheque No.945977 on 20 May 1999 in sum of Rs 7.31 crores which was dishonoured when Prasar Bharati presented the same for realization”.

Prasar Bharati and Stracon India had entered into an agreement on 5 June 1997 whereby Stracon became the accredited agent for Prasar Bharati concerning Doordarshan Commercial Service. Stracon was to be paid commission of 15 percent. It had a credit facility of between 45 days to 60 days. Indo-Pak one day test series was to be held between 7 April and 16 April 1999 in Sharjah, popularly known as the Sharjah Cup. Pertaining to the Sharjah Cup, an agreement of 22 January 1999 having therein an arbitration clause was executed between the parties.

But the World Cup had to be held in May of the same year. Another party, Nimbus, obtained an order in its favour from the Bombay High Court in this regard.

However by that time, certain amounts realized by Stracon concerning the World Cup from advertisers had been credited in an account maintained with Canara Bank, the benefit whereof was taken by Prasar Bharati together with the liabilities concerning the amounts. Amounts realized by Stracon from the Sharjah Cup and expenses incurred were credited and debited in the same account. In other words, amounts relating to both the World Cup and the Sharjah Cup were credited in the same account and amounts paid out were debited in the same account.

When the matter went for arbitration, Prasar Bharati claimed Rs 7,52,44,234 as the licence fee, Rs 3,33,50,000 towards withholding tax, Rs 3,48,16,159 towards revenue sharing, and Rs 3,56,01,813 towards opportunity cost as relating to the Sharjah Cup.

The Arbitrator award rejected the later three claims on account of no proof. Thus, the Delhi High Court only confined its order to the sum of Rs 7,31,00,000. In any case, even Prasar Bharati counsel Rajeev Sharma conceded that any claim pertaining to the World Cup could not be the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings.

The bank statement also showed that a sum of Rs 26,75,45,007 was realized by the appellant from third parties and the expenses are admittedly Rs 34,27,89,241 and even counsel on both sides did not dispute the correctness of the statement of account.

The court said this meant that “one has to simply bifurcate the amounts concerning the World Cup and the Sharjah Cup and ignore the amounts concerning the World Cup and focus only on the amounts concerning the Sharjah Cup.”

Prasar Bharati claimed that the deposits Rs 12,54,00,000 was for the World Cup and thus for the Sharjah event the amount would be Rs 14,21,45,007 after deducting the World Cup amount from the total of Rs 26,75,45,007. The outgoing for the Sharjah event was Rs 21,52,52,641 and this would mean the amount payable to Prasar Bharati is Rs 7,31,07,634 after deducting the sum of Rs 14,21,45,007 from Rs 21,52,52,641.

But the court said: “It is trite that of various kinds of admissions made by a party, the strongest admission against a party is the one made in a pleading.

The Court said: “There is a clear admission of the pleadings in first paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim. As regards the second paragraph, the denial is vague and has to be treated as an admission because we do not find anything in the preliminary submissions wherefrom it can be deduced that as per the appellant it denied the bifurcation as pleaded by the respondent in the second paragraph numbered as 11 in the Statement of Claim.”

The judgment said this admission is fortified from the pleading in paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim and its corresponding reply filed by the appellant. Thus, it is apparent that there is an admission of Rs 14,21,45,007 being towards the Sharjah event.

The court said: “The evasive denial means as admission of the fact pleaded in para 15 of the Statement of Claim that the total outgoing for the Sharjah event was Rs 21,52,52,641. If this be so, the destination is apparent. Deduct Rs 14,21,45,007 from said amount and we have the figure Rs 7,31,07,634.”

On the subject of limitation, the court said “we concur with the view taken by the learned Arbitrator that as long as the parties discussed the issue and till when a clear denial of the liability came from the mouth of the appellant limitation would not commence.”

June 20, 2016
Delhi HC directs Stracon India to pay Rs 7.31 crore to DD for Sharjah Cup 1999

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has affirmed that Stracon India Ltd owes a sum of Rs 7.31 crore to Prasar Bharati towards revenue earned for the Sharjah Cup 1999 between India and Pakistan.

Although an arbitrator had announced an award and a single judge had given a decision, the matter came before a division bench because of an appeal by Stracon India.

Dismissing the appeal, Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Mukta Gupta in their order of 14 March 2016 made available to indiantelevision.com today noted that: “If the learned Arbitrator who authored the award dated 14 March 2014 or the learned Single Judge who has pronounced the decision dated 1 October 2014 had been clear in their reasoning, a simple issue would not have seen so complicated.”

The Court noted that the Arbitrator had awarded Rs 7.31 crores. However, the judges regretted that the Arbitrator had not done the simple analysis of the pleadings but “left the award with the pleadings being simply noted”.

The Court said: “In this context it assumes importance that the appellant had issued cheque No.945977 on 20 May 1999 in sum of Rs 7.31 crores which was dishonoured when Prasar Bharati presented the same for realization”.

Prasar Bharati and Stracon India had entered into an agreement on 5 June 1997 whereby Stracon became the accredited agent for Prasar Bharati concerning Doordarshan Commercial Service. Stracon was to be paid commission of 15 percent. It had a credit facility of between 45 days to 60 days. Indo-Pak one day test series was to be held between 7 April and 16 April 1999 in Sharjah, popularly known as the Sharjah Cup. Pertaining to the Sharjah Cup, an agreement of 22 January 1999 having therein an arbitration clause was executed between the parties.

But the World Cup had to be held in May of the same year. Another party, Nimbus, obtained an order in its favour from the Bombay High Court in this regard.

However by that time, certain amounts realized by Stracon concerning the World Cup from advertisers had been credited in an account maintained with Canara Bank, the benefit whereof was taken by Prasar Bharati together with the liabilities concerning the amounts. Amounts realized by Stracon from the Sharjah Cup and expenses incurred were credited and debited in the same account. In other words, amounts relating to both the World Cup and the Sharjah Cup were credited in the same account and amounts paid out were debited in the same account.

When the matter went for arbitration, Prasar Bharati claimed Rs 7,52,44,234 as the licence fee, Rs 3,33,50,000 towards withholding tax, Rs 3,48,16,159 towards revenue sharing, and Rs 3,56,01,813 towards opportunity cost as relating to the Sharjah Cup.

The Arbitrator award rejected the later three claims on account of no proof. Thus, the Delhi High Court only confined its order to the sum of Rs 7,31,00,000. In any case, even Prasar Bharati counsel Rajeev Sharma conceded that any claim pertaining to the World Cup could not be the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings.

The bank statement also showed that a sum of Rs 26,75,45,007 was realized by the appellant from third parties and the expenses are admittedly Rs 34,27,89,241 and even counsel on both sides did not dispute the correctness of the statement of account.

The court said this meant that “one has to simply bifurcate the amounts concerning the World Cup and the Sharjah Cup and ignore the amounts concerning the World Cup and focus only on the amounts concerning the Sharjah Cup.”

Prasar Bharati claimed that the deposits Rs 12,54,00,000 was for the World Cup and thus for the Sharjah event the amount would be Rs 14,21,45,007 after deducting the World Cup amount from the total of Rs 26,75,45,007. The outgoing for the Sharjah event was Rs 21,52,52,641 and this would mean the amount payable to Prasar Bharati is Rs 7,31,07,634 after deducting the sum of Rs 14,21,45,007 from Rs 21,52,52,641.

But the court said: “It is trite that of various kinds of admissions made by a party, the strongest admission against a party is the one made in a pleading.

The Court said: “There is a clear admission of the pleadings in first paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim. As regards the second paragraph, the denial is vague and has to be treated as an admission because we do not find anything in the preliminary submissions wherefrom it can be deduced that as per the appellant it denied the bifurcation as pleaded by the respondent in the second paragraph numbered as 11 in the Statement of Claim.”

The judgment said this admission is fortified from the pleading in paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim and its corresponding reply filed by the appellant. Thus, it is apparent that there is an admission of Rs 14,21,45,007 being towards the Sharjah event.

The court said: “The evasive denial means as admission of the fact pleaded in para 15 of the Statement of Claim that the total outgoing for the Sharjah event was Rs 21,52,52,641. If this be so, the destination is apparent. Deduct Rs 14,21,45,007 from said amount and we have the figure Rs 7,31,07,634.”

On the subject of limitation, the court said “we concur with the view taken by the learned Arbitrator that as long as the parties discussed the issue and till when a clear denial of the liability came from the mouth of the appellant limitation would not commence.”

June 20, 2016
Delhi HC notice to Govt on petition seeking cancellation of Ad cap violating pay channels licenses

NEW DELHI: Even as the Ad cap case is pending before it, the Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry on a fresh petition which has charged the ministry with dereliction of its duties to take action against offending Pay TV broadcasters for violating the terms and conditions of the licenses/permission for uplinking and downlinking permission/license.

Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath asked the ministry to file its reply in four weeks.

Notice was issued only to the ministry, although the petition also listed 21st Century Fox Inc., Star India Private Limited, Discovery Communications Inc., and Discovery Networks Asia-Pacific (South Asia) as respondents.

Although the petition initially came up before a single bench on 19 May, it was directed to be posted before the court of the Chief Justice who is already hearing the other acap case filed by the News Broadcasters Association and others, and was heard on 27 May.

The petitioners Vikki Choudhry and Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd. have urged the court to issue directions for cancellation of the licences of Star India and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific as they are alleged to be in violation of the license conditions agreed by them under clause 5.2 of the uplinking guidelines and clause 5.1 of the downlinking guidelines, apart from the undertaking in the form of affidavit for the Up-linking and Down-linking Guidelines, and also in violation of the provisions of section 8 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. It is alleged that these two have deliberately violated the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and rules thereunder.

The Court has also been urged to issue writ, order or direction to the two groups to deposit the revenue earned from the advertisement during the last three financial years (FY 2015-16, 2014-15, 2013-14) with the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central Government constituted under the Excise Act, 1944

Directions have also been sought for the Electronic Media Monitoring Centre of the I & B Ministry to monitor all the Pay TV channels broadcast in India and report the violations of the prescribed Advertising Code under the rule 7 (10) and 7(11) of the CTN Rules, 1994 and the CTNR Act, 1995 on monthly/weekly basis.

The petition has alleged that the Pay TV broadcasters are in continuous violation of the terms of license under the uplinking and downlinking guidelines, and have in their weekly report admitted the same. It said “all the respondent channels are being parties as matter of illustration and ease of pleadings because the rule of minutage of advertisement 12 minutes per clock hour is in existence in several countries and these channels are strictly complying with such directives in other countries whereas they are in continued violations in India”.

It was pointed out that Star India is a 100 percent subsidiary of 21st Century Fox Inc. and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific is 100 percent subsidiary of Discovery Communications Inc.
It said the pay TV broadcasters are indulging into profiteering at the expense of poor ordinary consumers in blatant violation of important tariff structure contained in the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines and permissions granted by the Ministry.

The petitioner said it had given detailed representations to the ministry several times without getting any reply. The petitioner had written to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in this connection but received a reply that the matter pertained to the ministry.

It has been pointed out that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petitions before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal against the Standards of Quality of Service (duration of advertisements in television channels) Regulations 2012 and assured the Tribunal that its members would comply with the law.

June 3, 2016
Delhi HC notice to Govt on petition seeking cancellation of Ad cap violating pay channels licenses

NEW DELHI: Even as the Ad cap case is pending before it, the Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry on a fresh petition which has charged the ministry with dereliction of its duties to take action against offending Pay TV broadcasters for violating the terms and conditions of the licenses/permission for uplinking and downlinking permission/license.

Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath asked the ministry to file its reply in four weeks.

Notice was issued only to the ministry, although the petition also listed 21st Century Fox Inc., Star India Private Limited, Discovery Communications Inc., and Discovery Networks Asia-Pacific (South Asia) as respondents.

Although the petition initially came up before a single bench on 19 May, it was directed to be posted before the court of the Chief Justice who is already hearing the other acap case filed by the News Broadcasters Association and others, and was heard on 27 May.

The petitioners Vikki Choudhry and Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd. have urged the court to issue directions for cancellation of the licences of Star India and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific as they are alleged to be in violation of the license conditions agreed by them under clause 5.2 of the uplinking guidelines and clause 5.1 of the downlinking guidelines, apart from the undertaking in the form of affidavit for the Up-linking and Down-linking Guidelines, and also in violation of the provisions of section 8 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. It is alleged that these two have deliberately violated the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and rules thereunder.

The Court has also been urged to issue writ, order or direction to the two groups to deposit the revenue earned from the advertisement during the last three financial years (FY 2015-16, 2014-15, 2013-14) with the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central Government constituted under the Excise Act, 1944

Directions have also been sought for the Electronic Media Monitoring Centre of the I & B Ministry to monitor all the Pay TV channels broadcast in India and report the violations of the prescribed Advertising Code under the rule 7 (10) and 7(11) of the CTN Rules, 1994 and the CTNR Act, 1995 on monthly/weekly basis.

The petition has alleged that the Pay TV broadcasters are in continuous violation of the terms of license under the uplinking and downlinking guidelines, and have in their weekly report admitted the same. It said “all the respondent channels are being parties as matter of illustration and ease of pleadings because the rule of minutage of advertisement 12 minutes per clock hour is in existence in several countries and these channels are strictly complying with such directives in other countries whereas they are in continued violations in India”.

It was pointed out that Star India is a 100 percent subsidiary of 21st Century Fox Inc. and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific is 100 percent subsidiary of Discovery Communications Inc.
It said the pay TV broadcasters are indulging into profiteering at the expense of poor ordinary consumers in blatant violation of important tariff structure contained in the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines and permissions granted by the Ministry.

The petitioner said it had given detailed representations to the ministry several times without getting any reply. The petitioner had written to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in this connection but received a reply that the matter pertained to the ministry.

It has been pointed out that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petitions before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal against the Standards of Quality of Service (duration of advertisements in television channels) Regulations 2012 and assured the Tribunal that its members would comply with the law.

June 3, 2016
Ad cap case put off to 13 May, court to hear plea challenging stay order

NEW DELHI: The ad cap case by television channels continues to linger on, with the Delhi High Court once again putting off the hearing to 13 May when it will hear an application by intervenor Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

The matter was put off by chief justice G Rohini and justice Jayant Nath as they did not have time to hear the matter in view of urgent cases. In the last hearing on 29 March, a plea was made on behalf of the Information and Broadcasting ministry that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour.

However counsel Vivek Sarin of Home Cable counsel pressed for early hearing of his application for vacation of stay. Thereupon, counsel for Discovery Communications said it wanted to press its application to come in as intervenor. The court had on 11 February adjourned the hearing to today when it had agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

Earlier on 27 November last year, the court chaired by the chief justice had said the matter had been pending for some time and therefore it would hear and conclude the case in the next hearing. On that day, the I and B Ministry had informed the Court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour. This was the first time that the ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the News Broadcasters and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others.

Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd had been permitted to intervene on 5 January and the Court had agreed to consider contentions on whether pay channels should be permitted to carry commercials in view of subscription fee charged by them. Home Cable Counsel Vivek Sarin had told the court that the petitioners had not disclosed that broadcasters had given their consent to observe the 10+2 ad cap rule under the Cable Television Network Regulation Rules 1994 and the Act that followed a year later and also under the Uplink and Downlink Guidelines. He also said pay TV broadcasters should not be allowed to take ads as they charged subscription fee.

The case, filed by News Broadcasters Association and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

The court has already directed that the order that TRAI would not take any action against any channel pending the petition would continue. In an earlier hearing, the court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamoru, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

Meanwhille, complaints against fifteen broadcasters by TRAI on the ad cap issue are also pending with the chief metropolitan magistrate in Delhi.

April 27, 2016