ITV

Category: High Court

  • Ad cap case put off to 13 May, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    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.

  • HCs’ informed about SC decision to transfer all DAS cases to Delhi HC

    HCs’ informed about SC decision to transfer all DAS cases to Delhi HC

    NEW DELHI: The registry of the Supreme Court has finally sent to all the concerned high courts the directive of the apex court for transfer of all cases seeking extension to digital addressable system for cable television to Delhi High Court with a view to avoid conflicting decisions’.

    Court registry officials told indiantelevision.com that the order of the apex court of early this month had been sent on 16 April. A copy of the order was also sent to the Delhi High Court and it was now up to that court to fix a date.

    The officials said that the attempt would be to first receive from the various high courts the papers relating to the petitions, which almost all had pleaded shortage of set top boxes for seeking extension or stay of DAS which became effective 1 January 2016.

    Earlier, the apex court had accepted the plea of the central government that ‘it would be justand proper for this court to withdraw all those cases pending in different high courtsand transfer the same to Delhi High Court.’

    In its order of 1 April, justices V Gopala Gowda and Arjun Mishra had said on the transfer petition filed by the central government that ‘in future, if any case on the same legalquestion is filed before the high court(s), such case(s) shall also be transferred to theDelhi High Court’.

    The Supreme Court registry was directed to communicate the order tothe registrar general(s) of the respective high courts for transmitting the records of thecases pending before the respective high courts to Delhi High Court.

    The order took on record the fact that the All Sikkim Cable Operators Association
    had withdrawn from the High Court of Sikkim. The court also noted that one petitioner, JBM Cable Network, had refused to accept notice but this service would be considered sufficient. Ironically, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had on 12 January written to its counsel in Punjab and Haryana High Court that it had understood the Hyderabad order to mean a pan India stay while asking him to defend the case.

    Buit later, the ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one high court gives a stay, another high court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the high court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

    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.

    Meanwhile, 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 have got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay.

    The Bombay High Court had referred in its order to the argument by counsel that the Supreme Court in the Kusum Ingot case had said that if similar circumstances persist in other states, then they can pass an order similar to one passed by an earlier court.

  • HCs’ informed about SC decision to transfer all DAS cases to Delhi HC

    HCs’ informed about SC decision to transfer all DAS cases to Delhi HC

    NEW DELHI: The registry of the Supreme Court has finally sent to all the concerned high courts the directive of the apex court for transfer of all cases seeking extension to digital addressable system for cable television to Delhi High Court with a view to avoid conflicting decisions’.

    Court registry officials told indiantelevision.com that the order of the apex court of early this month had been sent on 16 April. A copy of the order was also sent to the Delhi High Court and it was now up to that court to fix a date.

    The officials said that the attempt would be to first receive from the various high courts the papers relating to the petitions, which almost all had pleaded shortage of set top boxes for seeking extension or stay of DAS which became effective 1 January 2016.

    Earlier, the apex court had accepted the plea of the central government that ‘it would be justand proper for this court to withdraw all those cases pending in different high courtsand transfer the same to Delhi High Court.’

    In its order of 1 April, justices V Gopala Gowda and Arjun Mishra had said on the transfer petition filed by the central government that ‘in future, if any case on the same legalquestion is filed before the high court(s), such case(s) shall also be transferred to theDelhi High Court’.

    The Supreme Court registry was directed to communicate the order tothe registrar general(s) of the respective high courts for transmitting the records of thecases pending before the respective high courts to Delhi High Court.

    The order took on record the fact that the All Sikkim Cable Operators Association
    had withdrawn from the High Court of Sikkim. The court also noted that one petitioner, JBM Cable Network, had refused to accept notice but this service would be considered sufficient. Ironically, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had on 12 January written to its counsel in Punjab and Haryana High Court that it had understood the Hyderabad order to mean a pan India stay while asking him to defend the case.

    Buit later, the ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one high court gives a stay, another high court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the high court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

    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.

    Meanwhile, 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 have got stay orders in Mangalore and Mysore areas while there is no state-wide stay.

    The Bombay High Court had referred in its order to the argument by counsel that the Supreme Court in the Kusum Ingot case had said that if similar circumstances persist in other states, then they can pass an order similar to one passed by an earlier court.

  • MIB directs TV channels, MSOs, FM channels to follow directives of Delhi HC on Balaji comedy

    MIB directs TV channels, MSOs, FM channels to follow directives of Delhi HC on Balaji comedy

    New Delhi: Doordarshan and all private channels were today asked by the Information and Broadcasting ministry to comply with the directive of the Delhi High Court not to telecast or publicise in any manner the film Kya Kool Hain Hum 3.

     Justin Vipin Sanghi had passed the order earlier this year on a petition by Balaji Motion Pictures against WWW.1337.YOOTORRENT.COM and others barring them “from  communicating, making available, distributing ,duplicating, displaying, releasing, showing, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing, defraying the movie Kya KoolHai Hum 3 in any manner whatsoever without obtaining prior license from the plaintiff or in any other manner that would infringe the plaintiffs copyright in the said cinematograph film through any medium whatsoever.”

     Thirty-six other defendants were directed to ensure compliance of the order by the other defendants.

    The ministry directive dated 14 March was addressed to News Broadcasters Association (NBA), Indian Broadcasting Foundation Association of Regional Television Broadcasters of India, all TV Channels, all MSOs, and all FM Stations.

    In the petition, Balaji had said that release of any material or the film itself would lead to colossal losses to the company.

     Balaji impleading 300 defendants of which 1 to 203 are websites allegedly engaged in the business of uploading content. The plaintiff apprehends that the said websites may even upload unlicensed copy of the plaintiffs film Kya Kool Hai Hum3, of which the plaintiff claims to be the producer and copyright holder. defendants no.204 to 238 are Internet Service Providers (ISP), who are engaged in the business of providing basic telephony, mobile services and broadband network all over the world and are covered by the Information Technology Act, 2000 as well as Copyright Act, 1957 and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act).

     The Ministry of Communication & Information Technology has been impleaded as defendant no.239. The plaintiff stated that defendants no.204 to 239 have been impleaded so that the orders that may be passed by the court may be implemented by them by blocking the infringing URLs of websites such as defendants no.1 to 203. Defendants no.240 to260 and 260-274 are Multi System Operators (MSOs) and cable operators governed by the Cable Network RegulationAct 1995 and the TRAI Act. The plaintiff stated that various MSOs and cable operators, including in Delhi could be engaged in unauthorised unlicensed production and broadcast, on their local channels and through other means, of various pirated contents, including cinematograph films through their cable network. The apprehension of the plaintiff was that the said defendants may indulge in broadcast of the aforesaid copyright of the plaintiff, which at the time of the court order of 19 January was yet to be released (on 22 January) and Balaji apprehends will infringe the copyright m  the  aforesaid cinematograph film.

  • MIB directs TV channels, MSOs, FM channels to follow directives of Delhi HC on Balaji comedy

    MIB directs TV channels, MSOs, FM channels to follow directives of Delhi HC on Balaji comedy

    New Delhi: Doordarshan and all private channels were today asked by the Information and Broadcasting ministry to comply with the directive of the Delhi High Court not to telecast or publicise in any manner the film Kya Kool Hain Hum 3.

     Justin Vipin Sanghi had passed the order earlier this year on a petition by Balaji Motion Pictures against WWW.1337.YOOTORRENT.COM and others barring them “from  communicating, making available, distributing ,duplicating, displaying, releasing, showing, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing, defraying the movie Kya KoolHai Hum 3 in any manner whatsoever without obtaining prior license from the plaintiff or in any other manner that would infringe the plaintiffs copyright in the said cinematograph film through any medium whatsoever.”

     Thirty-six other defendants were directed to ensure compliance of the order by the other defendants.

    The ministry directive dated 14 March was addressed to News Broadcasters Association (NBA), Indian Broadcasting Foundation Association of Regional Television Broadcasters of India, all TV Channels, all MSOs, and all FM Stations.

    In the petition, Balaji had said that release of any material or the film itself would lead to colossal losses to the company.

     Balaji impleading 300 defendants of which 1 to 203 are websites allegedly engaged in the business of uploading content. The plaintiff apprehends that the said websites may even upload unlicensed copy of the plaintiffs film Kya Kool Hai Hum3, of which the plaintiff claims to be the producer and copyright holder. defendants no.204 to 238 are Internet Service Providers (ISP), who are engaged in the business of providing basic telephony, mobile services and broadband network all over the world and are covered by the Information Technology Act, 2000 as well as Copyright Act, 1957 and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act).

     The Ministry of Communication & Information Technology has been impleaded as defendant no.239. The plaintiff stated that defendants no.204 to 239 have been impleaded so that the orders that may be passed by the court may be implemented by them by blocking the infringing URLs of websites such as defendants no.1 to 203. Defendants no.240 to260 and 260-274 are Multi System Operators (MSOs) and cable operators governed by the Cable Network RegulationAct 1995 and the TRAI Act. The plaintiff stated that various MSOs and cable operators, including in Delhi could be engaged in unauthorised unlicensed production and broadcast, on their local channels and through other means, of various pirated contents, including cinematograph films through their cable network. The apprehension of the plaintiff was that the said defendants may indulge in broadcast of the aforesaid copyright of the plaintiff, which at the time of the court order of 19 January was yet to be released (on 22 January) and Balaji apprehends will infringe the copyright m  the  aforesaid cinematograph film.

  • Delhi HC restrains 200+ websites from illegally showing Balaji’s ‘Kyaa Kool Hain Hum 3’

    Delhi HC restrains 200+ websites from illegally showing Balaji’s ‘Kyaa Kool Hain Hum 3’

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has restrained around 203 websites from streaming, broadcasting or providing online access to Balaji Motion Pictures’ recently released film Kyaa Kool Hain Hum 3.

     

    Passing the restraint order, the court said the production company Balaji Motion Pictures is “entitled to get protection under the Copyright Act.”

     

    Balaji Motion Pictures had approached the High Court contending that 203 websites, local cable operators and others should be restrained from making available or showing, uploading, downloading or exhibiting the movie in any manner without proper licence from the producers.

     

    Accepting the plea, Justice Vipin Sanghi issued notice to 300 defendants including websites and local cable operators and directed them to comply with the order restraining all of them from providing “online access in any manner.” The matter has been listed for 5 May.

     

    Besides restraining the websites from providing access to the film, the court also directed various Internet Service Providers (ISP), Department of Telecommunications and Department of Information Technology to ensure compliance by blocking access to all the 203 websites identified by the producers.

     

    In the Delhi High Court, Balaji counsel Abhishek Malhotra said the film cannot be viewed on any device or broadcast on any platform through Internet without their permission.

     

    He said the cause of action arose after he received information that the defendants and unknown persons were engaged in rampant piracy and abuse of copyright in respect of various other works including the film.

     

    “They are likely to indulge in unlicensed and unauthorised exploitation of the film merely a week ahead,” the counsel contended.

     

    Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court has issued notices to the producers, director and writers of the film and sought a response to a public interest litigation seeking a ban on it for allegedly vulgar content.

     

    The division bench of Justices N H Patil and G S Kulkarni said they will hear the petition next week but reprimanded the petitioner Zuber Khan for moving the court late as the film had already been released. The petition claimed the film is vulgar and against the culture and ethos of the country. “In the trailer, the film is said to be India’s first Porn comedy. The posters are vulgar with semi-nude photos,” it says. The court issued notices to the producers Ekta Kapoor and Shobha Kapoor, director Umesh Ghadge and writers Milap Zaveri and Mustaq Shaikh apart from the Censor Board and the Maharashtra government.

     

    Khan said he would amend the petition and also seek a ban on another such film, Mastizaadefeaturing Sunny Leone amongst others, which is scheduled to release next week.

     

    Released on 22 January, the film stars Tusshar Kapoor and Aftab Shivdasani in the lead along with Mandana Karimi, Gizele Thakral, Claudia Ciesla, Krishna Abhishek, Shakti Kapoor and Darshan Jariwala.

  • Delhi HC restrains 200+ websites from illegally showing Balaji’s ‘Kyaa Kool Hain Hum 3’

    Delhi HC restrains 200+ websites from illegally showing Balaji’s ‘Kyaa Kool Hain Hum 3’

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has restrained around 203 websites from streaming, broadcasting or providing online access to Balaji Motion Pictures’ recently released film Kyaa Kool Hain Hum 3.

     

    Passing the restraint order, the court said the production company Balaji Motion Pictures is “entitled to get protection under the Copyright Act.”

     

    Balaji Motion Pictures had approached the High Court contending that 203 websites, local cable operators and others should be restrained from making available or showing, uploading, downloading or exhibiting the movie in any manner without proper licence from the producers.

     

    Accepting the plea, Justice Vipin Sanghi issued notice to 300 defendants including websites and local cable operators and directed them to comply with the order restraining all of them from providing “online access in any manner.” The matter has been listed for 5 May.

     

    Besides restraining the websites from providing access to the film, the court also directed various Internet Service Providers (ISP), Department of Telecommunications and Department of Information Technology to ensure compliance by blocking access to all the 203 websites identified by the producers.

     

    In the Delhi High Court, Balaji counsel Abhishek Malhotra said the film cannot be viewed on any device or broadcast on any platform through Internet without their permission.

     

    He said the cause of action arose after he received information that the defendants and unknown persons were engaged in rampant piracy and abuse of copyright in respect of various other works including the film.

     

    “They are likely to indulge in unlicensed and unauthorised exploitation of the film merely a week ahead,” the counsel contended.

     

    Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court has issued notices to the producers, director and writers of the film and sought a response to a public interest litigation seeking a ban on it for allegedly vulgar content.

     

    The division bench of Justices N H Patil and G S Kulkarni said they will hear the petition next week but reprimanded the petitioner Zuber Khan for moving the court late as the film had already been released. The petition claimed the film is vulgar and against the culture and ethos of the country. “In the trailer, the film is said to be India’s first Porn comedy. The posters are vulgar with semi-nude photos,” it says. The court issued notices to the producers Ekta Kapoor and Shobha Kapoor, director Umesh Ghadge and writers Milap Zaveri and Mustaq Shaikh apart from the Censor Board and the Maharashtra government.

     

    Khan said he would amend the petition and also seek a ban on another such film, Mastizaadefeaturing Sunny Leone amongst others, which is scheduled to release next week.

     

    Released on 22 January, the film stars Tusshar Kapoor and Aftab Shivdasani in the lead along with Mandana Karimi, Gizele Thakral, Claudia Ciesla, Krishna Abhishek, Shakti Kapoor and Darshan Jariwala.

  • Delhi HC examining if TDSAT had jurisdiction in giving parity to HITS with MSOs

    Delhi HC examining if TDSAT had jurisdiction in giving parity to HITS with MSOs

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reserved its orders on whether the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) had the jurisdiction to ‘re-write the regulation’ by asking broadcasters to treat the headend in the sky (HITS) operator Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) at the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs).

     

    Justice Rajiv Sahai End law passed the order on a petition by Star India arising out of a Tribunal judgment of 7 December, 2015.

     

    The court also said that a directive by TDSAT of 18 December asking Star India and other broadcasters to produce the kind of agreements it had with Hathway, Den and SitiCable and listing the matter for 12 January would stand suspended until the outcome of the High Court case.

     

    The Court heard arguments presented by Star India and NSTPL whose petition had been accepted on 7 December by the Tribunal, which had asked Star India and Taj TV to execute fresh agreements with NSTPL. However, TDSAT had kept the operation of the judgment pending till 31 March this year.

     

    It had said that on past occasions it had made similar suggestions with the hope of nudging the Television Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the Regulations. At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia.

     

    The Tribunal had, on 18 December, impleaded Zee Turner and others in another petition by Star India against NSTPL and asked the broadcasters to produce agreements between broadcasters and major MSOs. It opined that some agreements have to be suspended by Star and Taj TV.

  • Odhisa HC recognises Ortel’s representation on DAS Phase III; urges MIB to give it two months

    Odhisa HC recognises Ortel’s representation on DAS Phase III; urges MIB to give it two months

    MUMBAI: Is another state joining the ranks of those who have asked for – and have been given – time to be able to implement digitisation in Digital Addressable System (DAS) Phase III areas? If initial indications are to be believed, the answer is yes. According to our sources, the Odhisa High Court has directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to act on the representation given by Last Mile Owner (LMO) Ortel Communications.  
     

    The LMO had presented various teething issues relating to digitisation, which were leading to delays in meeting the deadline date in Phase III areas, to the MIB. But the ministry, apparently ignored Ortel’s representations. Following which the company approached the Odhisa High Court. 

     

    “We are totally in favor of digitisation and are always ready to support it in every possible way. Our petition is not against DAS; our concern is the unavailability of various important aspects, which is proving to be a handicap for us,” asserts a senior company official.

     

    Shortage of set top boxes (STBs) was the main concern in the submitted representation, which also had consumer resistance and capital crisis in it, among others. 

    “The court recognised the STB drought and has directed the MIB to address the issue in two months’ time. Meanwhile, the court has also directed that no action should to be taken against Ortel before the representation is addressed,” a source present in the court tells Indiantelevision.com.

     

    “This direction of the court is for Ortel communications and its operations, and not an overall Odhisa statement,” clarified the source in the court.
     

    But given the strong hold Ortel has over Odhisa as the main provider of cable TV there, it probably means an extension of the digitisation deadline in the state, say industry sources. 
     

    Also read: DAS Phase III stayed in 5 states including Maharashtra

  • Bombay HC to hear Nasik District Cable Operators Federation’s plea on 22 December

    Bombay HC to hear Nasik District Cable Operators Federation’s plea on 22 December

    MUMBAI: Nasik District Cable Operators Federation (NDCOF) has filed a plea in the Bombay High Court in order to get a stay order on cable TV digitisation process. The plea will go for hearing on 22 December, 2015.

     

    “If Inter Connect Agreement (ICA) under which comes a major part of the digitisation process, is not ready how can we go ahead with Digital Addressable System (DAS)? There are lessons, which Phase I and II of DAS has taught us and we are not ready to face the same issues again. That’s why we have decided to take the legal route,” a member of NDCOF told Indiantelevision.com.

     

    Now it remains to be seen what happens when the Bombay High Court gives out its verdict on the case on 22 December.