ITV

Category: High Court

  • Shraddha Sharma wins case against Culture Machine

    Shraddha Sharma wins case against Culture Machine

    MUMBAI: Shraddha Sharma became an overnight internet sensation through her YouTube channel ‘Shraddharockin’ with close to 160,166 subscribers.

    Recently, the 18-year-old musician was dragged to court by her ex-managers of the multi-channel network, Culture Machine for her refusal to renew the contract.

    The singer countered their complaint by saying that her contract had ended and she had asked for the channel to be handed over to her.

    Creative liberties and ownership of intellectual property have always been a cause of concern for artistes everywhere. Time and again, we have heard stories of musicians who did not get their due.
    However in Sharma’s case, the Bombay High Court has ruled in her favour.

     

    Sharma, who has now started her own YouTube channel called ‘Shraddha Supagirl’, is amongst the many singers who dream to be recognised for their work.  

     

  • Pressure of work before HC leads to adjournment of ad cap hearing to 21 January

    Pressure of work before HC leads to adjournment of ad cap hearing to 21 January

    NEW DELHI: The ad cap case has been adjourned yet again – this time to 21 January – in view of a large number of pending cases before the High Court.

     
    During the last hearing on 25 September, News Broadcasters Association counsel Nisha Bhambani had sought adjournment in view of the senior counsel S Ganesh not being in Delhi.

     
    Earlier on 15 July, the Court had adjourned the case as the final hearing of the bunch of petitions challenging the ad cap sort to be imposed by TRAI as the authority had not finalised its rejoinder.

     
    The case had been previously heard in the High Court on 17 December last year and 13 March this year.

     
    While TRAI had earlier given an assurance that it would not take any action against any channel pending the petition, 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 petition 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.

     
    The news and regional broadcasters fear that the capping of commercial airtime will curtail their ad revenues. They also argue that the ad cap must be brought only after the benefits of cable TV digitisation start kicking in.

     
    Earlier this year, the Court also granted interim relief to Hyderabad-based MAA Television Network against the ad cap regulation. However, the court had also observed that the cap on advertisements is a ‘reasonable exercise’.

     
    Four major broadcast networks—Star India, Zee Entertainment, Multi Screen Media and TV18 Group—are following the regulations.

     

  • Calcutta HC extends stay order on Digicable Comm’s licence cancellation till 28 Nov

    Calcutta HC extends stay order on Digicable Comm’s licence cancellation till 28 Nov

    KOLKATA: Granting relief to Digicable Comm Services once again, the Calcutta High Court has further extended the interim stay on the cancellation of the registration of the Kolkata-based multi system operator (MSO), till 28 November.

     

    As reported earlier, the MSO had got a stay order on the cancellation of the registration of its license till 29 August, which was later extended till 31 October.

     

    The case was again up for hearing today. “The matter was heard and the stay has been further extended till 28 November 2014,” said Digicable Comm Services VP – operations and technology Lokesh Agarwal.

     

    Around two months ago, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had cancelled the registration of Digicable Comm.

     

    Digicable counsel had earlier argued in the court that the MIB only stated the reason for cancellation of registration as not receiving security clearance from the Home Ministry. However, it did not give the reason for denial of security clearance. The Ministry counsel, in his response said that the reason for non- clearance cannot be disclosed to Digicable for security reasons.

     

     The court observed that when the MSO received its DAS licence in 2013, it was subject to security clearance from Home Ministry and the same has been denied in the order passed last month. Subsequently, Digicable Comm was asked to stop operations within 15 days.

     

     Digicable Comm however appealed to both the Home Ministry and High Court in order to put a stay on the cancellation.

     

  • Govt. denies reports of imposition of penalty on Google

    Govt. denies reports of imposition of penalty on Google

    NEW DELHI: The Government today clarified that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has not imposed any penalty on Google Inc. for allegedly failing to provide information in a probe into its alleged unfair trade practices in India.
     
    It said that media reports on the order of the Commission being stayed by the Delhi High Court are erroneous, since no such penalty (reported by the media as Rs one crore) had been imposed.
     
    The Corporate Affairs Ministry said the Writ Petition No. 7084 of 2014 was filed by Google Inc. with respect to the case No. 06 of 2014 in which CCI has not imposed any penalty and therefore there is no question of stay of penalty.
     
    The case related to issue of confidentiality and an order was passed by the Court after hearing the Counsels of the parties.
     
    Meanwhile, the Court last week restrained the CCI from disclosing any information, considered as confidential by Google Inc, during its probe into a complaint lodged by an entrepreneur who also runs a website.
     
    Justice Vibhu Bakhru in his order also issued notice to CCI and sought its response within four weeks on the plea of Google Inc.
     
    “In the meantime, it is clarified that any information if submitted to CCI as well as to the Director General by the petitioner Google Inc, which the petitioner considers to be confidential, shall not be disclosed to any party and shall be kept strictly confidential,” the court said, and fixed the plea for hearing on 9 March 2015.
     
    Google said that it had challenged the jurisdiction of the CCI in its appeal relating to a complaint filed by entrepreneur Vishal Gupta before the panel.
     
    “The CCI lacks the territorial jurisdiction” and therefore was wrong to order a probe against Google Inc, it said.
     
    Google also said that its action to terminate AdWords account, meant to promote its Remote Tech Support services, of Vishal Gupta/Audney Inc has “no impact on competition in India” and it has “legitimately” been suspended.

     

  • Ad Cap case adjourned till 20 November

    Ad Cap case adjourned till 20 November

    MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court once again adjourned the ad cap case, this time to 20 November.

     

    The News Broadcasters Association (NBA), the lead petitioner in the matter, had sought 10 days adjournment as senior counsel S Ganesh, was not present in view to other pending cases in Mumbai.

     

    “We had requested to accommodate the case for 10 days as the senior consel had to go to Mumbai,” said the lawyer for NBA.

     

    However, the HC postponed the case till 20 November since it didn’t have any dates before that to hear the case.

     

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) advocate Saket Singh emphasised that the matter has already been pending for more than 10 months.

     

    During the last hearing on 15 July, the HC had adjourned the case as the final hearing of the bunch of petitions challenging the ad cap sort to be imposed by TRAI as the authority has not finalised its rejoinder.

     

    The case had been previously heard in the High Court on 17 December last year and 13 March this year.

     
    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 petition 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.

     
    The news and regional broadcasters fear that the capping of commercial airtime will curtail their ad revenues. They also argue that the ad cap must be brought only after the benefits of cable TV digitisation start kicking in.
     

    Earlier this year, the Court also granted interim relief to Hyderabad-based MAA Television Network against the ad cap regulation. However, the court had also observed that the cap on advertisements is a ‘reasonable exercise’.

     
    Four major broadcast networks—Star India, Zee Entertainment, Multi Screen Media and TV18 Group—are following the regulations.

  • Delhi HC extends stay on Kantar, case pushed to Feb 2015

    Delhi HC extends stay on Kantar, case pushed to Feb 2015

    MUMBAI: The hearing on the case between Kantar Market Research and the government of India has been put off to 12 February 2015.

     

    The case that was last heard on 8 September saw a notice of the application by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) being accepted by the Kantar counsel that has been asked to file a response within two weeks. After this, an advance copy of the same will be given to the IBF who may then file a response in two or three weeks’ time.

     

    The case has been put off to 12 February 2015, on account of the personal reasons of the Kantar counsel, who had prayed for a date in January 2015.

     

    Meanwhile, the interim order on the case will continue that will allow Kantar’s subsidiary TAM Media Research to publish ratings till the verdict on the case is out.

     

    Kantar had challenged the cross-holding norm in the policy guidelines for TV rating agencies for which it had got the HC’s stay order. However, the research agency still hasn’t received any response from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on its application to be registered as a TV ratings service.

     

    Apart from the IBF, the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) has also joined the respondents in favour of the guidelines.

  • Madras HC denies stay on Kal Cables’ licence cancellation by MIB

    Madras HC denies stay on Kal Cables’ licence cancellation by MIB

    MUMBAI: As soon as the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) came out with an order cancelling the registration of Kal Cables, the company run by the Maran group moved the Madras High Court challenging the order.

     

    The petition contends that there was no notice issued to it before cancellation. While the petitioner was seeking to squash the order, the interim prayer was to provide a stay on it. The court denied the stay and said that the 15 day deadline for winding up operations will continue. However it has stayed the MIB’s directive to put a scroll on its network informing them that the service will be cut and asking them to move to other MSOs.  

     

    The petition from Kal Cables managing director Vittal Sampathkumaran states that following the insertion of Rules 11A to 11F in the Cable Television Network Rules 1995, it had applied for grant of registration to operate as MSO in digital addressable system (DAS) areas in November 2012.

     

    In March 2013 the MIB granted provisional registration to Kal Cables which has now been revoked and has asked the MSO to wind up operations within 15 days. The registration was denied on the grounds of denial of security clearance. However, Kal says that there has been no change in its business operations, and hence this is no cause for denial of licence.

     

    The court has asked the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to submit its report on why the clearance was denied. Counsel for MHA said that the document was confidential and could be provided only by Tuesday, 2 September.

     

    Kal Cables runs Sumangli Cable Vision that has operations mainly in Chennai.

  • Commercial TV subscriber tariffs: Broadcasters, Star take battle to courts

    Commercial TV subscriber tariffs: Broadcasters, Star take battle to courts

    MUMBAI: It’s the battle of the bill – the commercial cable TV bill, that is. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on 16 July 2014 issued an amendment to its earlier 2004 broadcasting and cable TV tariff order. The amendment brought in new customer categories such as commercial establishments and commercial subscribers. And it also stated that as far as cable TV rates are concerned, there shouldn’t be any differentiation on an ordinary and commercial subscriber and charges for both should be on a per TV set basis.

     

    That amendment has not gone down well with the Indian broadcast community as they have been lobbying for differential rates for commercial subscribers for a long time and the global practice is that commercial establishment and subscribers pay more than common subscribers.

     

    Its representative body, the Indian Broadcasting Federation (IBF) decided to challenge the tariff order for non-digital addressable areas (DAS) in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). And industry leader Star India decided to file a writ petition against the TRAI challenging the order for both non DAS and DAS and other addressable systems in the Delhi High Court.

     

    Coincidentally both the cases came up for hearing on the same day. While the HC declined to give a stay order on the 16 July 2014 tariff order amendment, it has served notices to both the TRAI and the Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India (FHRAI).

     

    The matter has been posted for a full-fledged hearing on 26 September. Till then, the order is maintainable. Meanwhile, the TDSAT has said that it will wait till the HC decides on the case to take any further action.

     

    What Star India has challenged in the HC is that the 16 July 2014 amendment order denies broadcasters the right to directly deal with the hotels. Star India has also appealed that it will have to unnecessarily depend on distribution platform operators DPOs to strike content deals as for commercial establishments, which might be treated as ordinary subscribers unless they specifically charge customers for cable TV subscribers. The broadcaster can only give a differentiated rate to those hotels that categorically mention TV as one of the services, thereby being deeming it fit to be called a commercial subscriber.

     

    The TRAI and FHRAI have been asked to respond to notices by the next hearing.

     

    Click here for the High Court order

  • Kolkata HC puts stay order on Digicable Comm Service’s license cancellation till 29 August

    Kolkata HC puts stay order on Digicable Comm Service’s license cancellation till 29 August

    KOLKATA: Granting relief to Digicable Comm Services, the Calcutta High Court has put a stay order on the cancellation of the registration of Kolkata-based multi-system operator (MSOs) till 29 August.

     

    In the order that was passed on 12 August, it states that “The petitioners having been in business for quite some time would suffer irreparable loss and injury, unless appropriate ad-interim protection is granted to them.”

     

    It continues to say, “The operation of the order dated 17/18 July, 2014 shall remain stayed till 29 August 2014”.

     

    Last month, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had cancelled the registration of Digicable.

     

    The Digicable counsel had argued in the court that the MIB had only stated the reason for cancellation of registration as not receiving security clearance from the Home Ministry. However, it did not give the reason for denial of security clearance. The counsel from the ministry side stated that the reason for clearance not being given cannot be disclosed to Digicable for security reasons.

     

    The court also observed that when the company was given the DAS licence in 2013, that was subject to the security clearance from Home Ministry and the same has been denied in the order passed last month. They were subsequently asked to stop operations within 15 days.

     

    Digicable Comm was hopeful that after appealing to the Home Ministry and moving the High Court, the decision would be in favour of the MSO.

     

    The company is a joint venture between Digicable (51 per cent) and Kolkata-headquartered Multicar Group (49 per cent) was formed in the year 2009, to gain the foothold in the West Bengal market.

     

    “We will follow the mandate. We are hopeful that the authorities would consider the minute details presented by us,” said Digicable Comm director Dileep Singh Mehta.

     

  • Delhi High Court stays EC’s paid news notice to Ashok Chavan

    Delhi High Court stays EC’s paid news notice to Ashok Chavan

    NEW DELHI: Former Maharashtra chief minister Ashok Chavan has received an interim relief with Delhi High Court putting a stay on the show cause notice issued by the Election Commission to the Congress politician.

     

    The Court also issued notice to BJP leaders Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, Kirit Somaiya and one independent candidate who had filed complaint against Chavan to the EC.

     

    The poll panel in the notice on 13 July had asked Chavan who had stood from Nanded in Maharashtra as to why he should not be disqualified for not giving correct details of his 2009 poll expenses.

     

    A fortnight ago, the Commission had set a 20-day deadline for Chavan to respond to the notice, saying he had “failed to lodge his account of election expenses in the manner required by the (Representation of the People) Act and rules.”

     

    Chavan had moved the court against the EC’s order, saying the panel had not followed the procedure laid out in the Representation of People Act prior to giving its findings.

     

    He had also said that the expenses that he had allegedly not declared pertained to some advertisements that were released in October 2009 regarding a meeting that was to be held between the members of United Progressive Alliance (UPA).

     

    Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Chavan and argued that the ex-CM did not know who had issued the advertisements.

     

    Chavan had won the 2009 assembly election from Bhokar in Maharashtra’s Nanded Lok Sabha constituency. He won the recent Lok Sabha polls from Nanded.

     

    It was contended that Chavan had incurred an expense of over Rs 16,000 for attending the UPA meeting that was advertised and that he had cited the same while filing his poll spends.