Category: TDSAT

TDSAT rejects MSO Honey Sky Vision’s petition against Sai Media

New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has rejected a petition by multisystem operator seeking to recover Rs 10.5 lakh from Sai Prasad Media Pvt Ltd which broadcasts ‘News Express’ amongst others.

Chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said: “We find that the whole exercise of execution of channel placement agreement and subsequent behaviour of petitioner as well as the respondent is completely opaque and ambiguous to say the least and hence non-maintainable.”

The petitioner had failed to produce any invoice which it might have raised or any authentic statement of accounts.

Meanwhile, Sai Media had filed an affidavit stating it had paid three-fourths of the amount due but produced a document. The tribunal felt its “authenticity was doubtful”.

The case of the petitioner had been that it had executed a placement agreement with Sai Media at the behest of the respondent for a period of 12 months beginning from 28 July 2012 and terminating on 27 July 2012. The consideration money was Rs 14 lakhs plus service tax; and it was payable in four equal installments. In consideration of this amount the petitioner was supposed to place the respondent’s channel ‘News Express’ on ‘S’ band. The petitioner has stated that it complied with all its obligations.under the channel placement agreement by carrying/placing the channel of the respondent at the desired frequency/band to the complete satisfaction of the respondent. It is also stated that the representatives/officials of the respondent company regularly visited the network/units of the petitioner in various• areas of Delhi.

May 25, 2016
TDSAT rejects MSO Honey Sky Vision’s petition against Sai Media

New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has rejected a petition by multisystem operator seeking to recover Rs 10.5 lakh from Sai Prasad Media Pvt Ltd which broadcasts ‘News Express’ amongst others.

Chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said: “We find that the whole exercise of execution of channel placement agreement and subsequent behaviour of petitioner as well as the respondent is completely opaque and ambiguous to say the least and hence non-maintainable.”

The petitioner had failed to produce any invoice which it might have raised or any authentic statement of accounts.

Meanwhile, Sai Media had filed an affidavit stating it had paid three-fourths of the amount due but produced a document. The tribunal felt its “authenticity was doubtful”.

The case of the petitioner had been that it had executed a placement agreement with Sai Media at the behest of the respondent for a period of 12 months beginning from 28 July 2012 and terminating on 27 July 2012. The consideration money was Rs 14 lakhs plus service tax; and it was payable in four equal installments. In consideration of this amount the petitioner was supposed to place the respondent’s channel ‘News Express’ on ‘S’ band. The petitioner has stated that it complied with all its obligations.under the channel placement agreement by carrying/placing the channel of the respondent at the desired frequency/band to the complete satisfaction of the respondent. It is also stated that the representatives/officials of the respondent company regularly visited the network/units of the petitioner in various• areas of Delhi.

May 25, 2016
TDSAT nixes payment demands without written agreement

NEW DELHI: The Telecom and Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has said that a proceeding for recovery of money due for supply of TV signals is not maintainable under section 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act 1997 in the absence of a written interconnect agreement between the parties.

Dismissing two petitions, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava turned down the argument that trading in TV signals or giving TV signals for retransmission is not per se illegal in terms of section 70 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 notwithstanding the provisions in the Digital Addressable System regulations mandating an agreement in writing.

One petition had been filed by multisystem operator Manthan Broadband Services Ltd against local cable operator Rajarhat Cable Broadband Service, while the other is by UCN Cable Network India Pvt. Ltd against Raj Cable Network.

The Manthan case is that Rajarhat has a large amount as dues of subscription fees but is shifting to another MSO without clearing arrears amounting to Rs 67,70,433 as dues of subscription charges up to 31 March 2015 and another sum of Rs 3,35,96,000 for the set top boxes (STBs) given to it by the petitioner, apart from interest @ 18 percent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. Manthan also wanted Rajarhat to be restrained from receiving signals from another MSO till all dues are cleared. The area comes under DAS.

UCN Cable Network filed for recovery of Rs 28,09,195 as dues of subscription fees and cost of STBs from Raj Cable Network and to restrain it from going to another MSO till the dues are cleared. The only difference in this case is that UCN had an interconnect agreement with Raj Cable in the form of a memo of understanding) that came to end on 31 August 2012, but the supply of signals continued beyond the term of the agreement and the dues claimed by the petitioner are computed up to September 2015. But the petition was filed on 5 November 2015 and the tribunal says this is ‘plainly barred by limitation and any claim for recovery of dues beyond that period is liable to rejection as being not based on any interconnect agreement.’ The area of operation relate to transmission in analogue mode.

Both the Interconnect Regulations 2004 and the DAS Interconnect Regulations 2012 contain almost identical provisions prohibiting distribution of TV signals for re-transmission without entering into an agreement in writing.

In view of this, the tribunal said it had in a number of cases taken the view that a distributor of TV channels acting in blatant disregard and deliberate disobedience of the regulations framed by TRAI in exercise of its powers under the TRAI Act cannot seek for recovery of its dues.

However, various counsellors had sought to argue on the basis of the Indian Contract Act and some Supreme Court judgments that the distributor was entitled to compensation.

However the tribunal said that the Interconnection Regulations 2004 were issued by TRAI on 10 December 2004 in order to cover arrangements for interconnection and revenue sharing among service providers in the broadcasting sector. On 17 March 2009 a notification was issued incorporating clause 4A in the body of the Regulations which clearly says ‘It shall be mandatory for the broadcasters of pay channels and distributors of TV channels to reduce the terms and conditions of all their interconnection agreements to writing’ and ‘No broadcaster of pay channels or distributor of TV channels such as multi-system operator or headend in the sky operator shall make available signals of TV channels to any distributor of TV channels without entering into a written interconnection agreement.’

The tribunal also said clause 5(16) of the DAS Interconnect Regulations 2012 (corresponding to clause 8 of the Interconnect Regulations 2004) allowed, after expiry of an agreement, three months’ time to the parties to negotiate the terms of the fresh agreement (which on being executed would relate back to the date of expiry of the previous agreement). The provision was widely misused, especially under DAS transmission, and supply of TV signals would be continued, in many cases for long periods of over a year after the existing agreement came to end.

The regulator clearly viewed it as an abuse of the regulation and by notification issued on 7 January 2016 amended clause 5(16) of the DAS Regulations 2012 with effect from 1 April 2016. Under this, no supply of signals can be made for a single day unless a fresh agreement is executed to replace the previous agreement on its expiry.

The tribunal also said cases coming to it showed a clear pattern. ‘When a major MSO wishes to enter a market, it poaches upon the LCOs, affiliated with other MSOs operating in the area from before by offering them much lower rates. As the LCOs shift to the new entrant in large numbers, conflicts arise between the LCOs and the MSO from which they earlier received signals. The new entrant gives its own STBs to the LCOs shifting to it for having the boxes seeded at the subscribers’ places. After LCOs in substantial numbers come under it and a large number of its boxes are seeded, the new entrant starts increasing its rates and then there is another round of conflict between the new entrant and its poached LCOs. All the arrangement is oral and without any inter-connect agreement. Hence, when the matter comes to the tribunal, it is the word of one side against the word of the other side. In the past months, a large number of such cases have come to the tribunal. It is obvious that such practices based on oral arrangements, besides being in violation of the regulation, vitiate the market and disrupt the orderly growth of the sector.”

May 17, 2016
TDSAT nixes payment demands without written agreement

NEW DELHI: The Telecom and Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has said that a proceeding for recovery of money due for supply of TV signals is not maintainable under section 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act 1997 in the absence of a written interconnect agreement between the parties.

Dismissing two petitions, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava turned down the argument that trading in TV signals or giving TV signals for retransmission is not per se illegal in terms of section 70 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 notwithstanding the provisions in the Digital Addressable System regulations mandating an agreement in writing.

One petition had been filed by multisystem operator Manthan Broadband Services Ltd against local cable operator Rajarhat Cable Broadband Service, while the other is by UCN Cable Network India Pvt. Ltd against Raj Cable Network.

The Manthan case is that Rajarhat has a large amount as dues of subscription fees but is shifting to another MSO without clearing arrears amounting to Rs 67,70,433 as dues of subscription charges up to 31 March 2015 and another sum of Rs 3,35,96,000 for the set top boxes (STBs) given to it by the petitioner, apart from interest @ 18 percent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. Manthan also wanted Rajarhat to be restrained from receiving signals from another MSO till all dues are cleared. The area comes under DAS.

UCN Cable Network filed for recovery of Rs 28,09,195 as dues of subscription fees and cost of STBs from Raj Cable Network and to restrain it from going to another MSO till the dues are cleared. The only difference in this case is that UCN had an interconnect agreement with Raj Cable in the form of a memo of understanding) that came to end on 31 August 2012, but the supply of signals continued beyond the term of the agreement and the dues claimed by the petitioner are computed up to September 2015. But the petition was filed on 5 November 2015 and the tribunal says this is ‘plainly barred by limitation and any claim for recovery of dues beyond that period is liable to rejection as being not based on any interconnect agreement.’ The area of operation relate to transmission in analogue mode.

Both the Interconnect Regulations 2004 and the DAS Interconnect Regulations 2012 contain almost identical provisions prohibiting distribution of TV signals for re-transmission without entering into an agreement in writing.

In view of this, the tribunal said it had in a number of cases taken the view that a distributor of TV channels acting in blatant disregard and deliberate disobedience of the regulations framed by TRAI in exercise of its powers under the TRAI Act cannot seek for recovery of its dues.

However, various counsellors had sought to argue on the basis of the Indian Contract Act and some Supreme Court judgments that the distributor was entitled to compensation.

However the tribunal said that the Interconnection Regulations 2004 were issued by TRAI on 10 December 2004 in order to cover arrangements for interconnection and revenue sharing among service providers in the broadcasting sector. On 17 March 2009 a notification was issued incorporating clause 4A in the body of the Regulations which clearly says ‘It shall be mandatory for the broadcasters of pay channels and distributors of TV channels to reduce the terms and conditions of all their interconnection agreements to writing’ and ‘No broadcaster of pay channels or distributor of TV channels such as multi-system operator or headend in the sky operator shall make available signals of TV channels to any distributor of TV channels without entering into a written interconnection agreement.’

The tribunal also said clause 5(16) of the DAS Interconnect Regulations 2012 (corresponding to clause 8 of the Interconnect Regulations 2004) allowed, after expiry of an agreement, three months’ time to the parties to negotiate the terms of the fresh agreement (which on being executed would relate back to the date of expiry of the previous agreement). The provision was widely misused, especially under DAS transmission, and supply of TV signals would be continued, in many cases for long periods of over a year after the existing agreement came to end.

The regulator clearly viewed it as an abuse of the regulation and by notification issued on 7 January 2016 amended clause 5(16) of the DAS Regulations 2012 with effect from 1 April 2016. Under this, no supply of signals can be made for a single day unless a fresh agreement is executed to replace the previous agreement on its expiry.

The tribunal also said cases coming to it showed a clear pattern. ‘When a major MSO wishes to enter a market, it poaches upon the LCOs, affiliated with other MSOs operating in the area from before by offering them much lower rates. As the LCOs shift to the new entrant in large numbers, conflicts arise between the LCOs and the MSO from which they earlier received signals. The new entrant gives its own STBs to the LCOs shifting to it for having the boxes seeded at the subscribers’ places. After LCOs in substantial numbers come under it and a large number of its boxes are seeded, the new entrant starts increasing its rates and then there is another round of conflict between the new entrant and its poached LCOs. All the arrangement is oral and without any inter-connect agreement. Hence, when the matter comes to the tribunal, it is the word of one side against the word of the other side. In the past months, a large number of such cases have come to the tribunal. It is obvious that such practices based on oral arrangements, besides being in violation of the regulation, vitiate the market and disrupt the orderly growth of the sector.”

May 17, 2016
TDSAT regrets TV distributors interconnect pacts without any written document

NEW DELHI: Noting that a large number of cases keep coming up before it suffer from the ‘malaise of distributors of TV channels entering into interconnect arrangements without any agreement in writing (or at any rate a definitive agreement) as mandated by law’. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has observed that ‘oral arrangements may appear expedient and profitable but with the passage of time, the relationship becomes both strained and hurtful.’

Disposing off three petitions involving 375 local cable operators, one by the Karnataka State Digital Cable TV Operators Welfare Association against Siti Cable Networks and the other by Cable Operators Sangram Association, Kolkata against Hathway Cable and Datacom, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said a large percentage of cases coming to the tribunal from the broadcasting sector have their root cause in the absence of any agreement in writing between the parties. “What is more regrettable” is the fact that the cases in which two distributors of TV signals happen to be in interconnect arrangement without any agreement in writing is not confined only to analogue transmission but arise almost in equal numbers under the Digital Addressable System regime.

In the two Kolkata cases, all the 102 LCOs and Hathway are directed to execute either the Model Interconnection Agreement based on mutual negotiations or failing this, the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days as there is no interconnect agreement between the two sides.

TRAI made it clear that in case no interconnection agreement in writing comes into existence between the LCOs and The MSOs, Siti Cable in the Karnataka case and Hathway (in the Kolkata case) will be obliged to discontinue the supply of signals to the LCOs for any supply of signals beyond that period would be illegal and in contravention of the statutory prohibition.

In case any of the LCO wishes to shift away from its present MSO, it must give 21 days’ notice to the MSO before migrating to any other distributor of signals.

As regards the past relationship, in case of any dues that the two MSOs (Siti Cable in Karnataka and Hathway in Kolkata) might claim on the basis of any written agreement or on the basis of any interim order passed by the tribunal in these proceedings, it would be open to them to initiate recovery proceedings against the concerned LCO in accordance with law.

“Needless to say, no monetary claim for supply of signals may be entertained that is not based on any written agreement.”

The Tribunal said it was “glad to note that the regulator has moved in and amended the regulations to plug in even the little loop-hole that was misused for continuing the supply of signals under DAS transmission even after the expiry of the agreement. Further, by another amendment in the Regulations it has removed the ambivalence that was created in the scheme of interconnections as result of fixing the shares of the MSO and the LCO by the Tariff Order dated 10 July 2010 as amended on 30 April 2012.”

The two amendments in the Interconnect Regulations 2012 made by TRAI during the pendency of these petitions leave nothing for adjudication in these matters and all that is required is to direct the parties to simply follow the law.

In the Karnataka LCO petition, the Tribunal said all the 269 LCOs will be free either to continue with the existing agreements or to switch over to either the Model Interconnection Agreement or the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days. Each of the LCOs should intimate Siti Cable whether or not it wishes to continue with the existing agreement. Those exercising the option not to continue with the existing agreement may further negotiate with Siti Cable for execution of the Model Interconnection Agreement failing which both sides must execute the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days from today.

The LCOs operate in Bengaluru which came under DAS transmission in Phase-11. All the LCOs represented through this petition are receiving their signals from the Siti Cable. The petition was filed on 24 August 2015 challenging the disconnection notices issued by the MSO under clauses 6.2 and 6.5 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) Regulations2012 issued on grounds of non-payment of the monthly subscription dues. Mutual negotiations before the Mediation Centre failed.

On 15 December 2015, it was stated on behalf of the MSO that as on 31 October 2015, the cumulative dues against the 269 LCOs amounted to Rs l.65 crore for the a Ia carte channels and for the channels that are given to the LCOs in bouquets, approximately Rs 25 lakh calculated @ Rs.60 per STB. It was also stated on behalf of the MSO that under the agreement with certain broadcasters, it was getting the broadcasters’ channels on the latter’s RIO rates and it was no longer possible for it to give those channels in any packages and any LCO wanting those channels could take them on RIO rates.

The Kolkata petitions were filed by the Association on behalf of 42 LCOs and later on behalf of another 60LCOs. All these LCOs operate in Kolkata and receive TV signals from Hathway. Most of the LCOs are operating in areas that came under DAS transmission in phase-II and a few are operating in areas that come under DAS transmission in phase-III. In these two cases, the LCOs sought a direction to the MSO to restore supply of signals to some of the STBs that, they alleged, were disconnected arbitrarily and not to interfere with the smooth and good quality supply of signals to the LCOs.

According to the petitioner, as per the understanding between the two sides, they were liable to pay Rs 110 per STB as monthly subscription fee for all the channels being received by them and regardless of the subscription fee charged by them from the individual subscribers but the MSO had raised the subscription fee and was trying to enforce package billing that would further greatly increase the monthly subscription fee. Though the parties are in interconnect arrangement for a long time, there is no interconnect agreements.

May 17, 2016
TDSAT regrets TV distributors interconnect pacts without any written document

NEW DELHI: Noting that a large number of cases keep coming up before it suffer from the ‘malaise of distributors of TV channels entering into interconnect arrangements without any agreement in writing (or at any rate a definitive agreement) as mandated by law’. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has observed that ‘oral arrangements may appear expedient and profitable but with the passage of time, the relationship becomes both strained and hurtful.’

Disposing off three petitions involving 375 local cable operators, one by the Karnataka State Digital Cable TV Operators Welfare Association against Siti Cable Networks and the other by Cable Operators Sangram Association, Kolkata against Hathway Cable and Datacom, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said a large percentage of cases coming to the tribunal from the broadcasting sector have their root cause in the absence of any agreement in writing between the parties. “What is more regrettable” is the fact that the cases in which two distributors of TV signals happen to be in interconnect arrangement without any agreement in writing is not confined only to analogue transmission but arise almost in equal numbers under the Digital Addressable System regime.

In the two Kolkata cases, all the 102 LCOs and Hathway are directed to execute either the Model Interconnection Agreement based on mutual negotiations or failing this, the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days as there is no interconnect agreement between the two sides.

TRAI made it clear that in case no interconnection agreement in writing comes into existence between the LCOs and The MSOs, Siti Cable in the Karnataka case and Hathway (in the Kolkata case) will be obliged to discontinue the supply of signals to the LCOs for any supply of signals beyond that period would be illegal and in contravention of the statutory prohibition.

In case any of the LCO wishes to shift away from its present MSO, it must give 21 days’ notice to the MSO before migrating to any other distributor of signals.

As regards the past relationship, in case of any dues that the two MSOs (Siti Cable in Karnataka and Hathway in Kolkata) might claim on the basis of any written agreement or on the basis of any interim order passed by the tribunal in these proceedings, it would be open to them to initiate recovery proceedings against the concerned LCO in accordance with law.

“Needless to say, no monetary claim for supply of signals may be entertained that is not based on any written agreement.”

The Tribunal said it was “glad to note that the regulator has moved in and amended the regulations to plug in even the little loop-hole that was misused for continuing the supply of signals under DAS transmission even after the expiry of the agreement. Further, by another amendment in the Regulations it has removed the ambivalence that was created in the scheme of interconnections as result of fixing the shares of the MSO and the LCO by the Tariff Order dated 10 July 2010 as amended on 30 April 2012.”

The two amendments in the Interconnect Regulations 2012 made by TRAI during the pendency of these petitions leave nothing for adjudication in these matters and all that is required is to direct the parties to simply follow the law.

In the Karnataka LCO petition, the Tribunal said all the 269 LCOs will be free either to continue with the existing agreements or to switch over to either the Model Interconnection Agreement or the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days. Each of the LCOs should intimate Siti Cable whether or not it wishes to continue with the existing agreement. Those exercising the option not to continue with the existing agreement may further negotiate with Siti Cable for execution of the Model Interconnection Agreement failing which both sides must execute the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days from today.

The LCOs operate in Bengaluru which came under DAS transmission in Phase-11. All the LCOs represented through this petition are receiving their signals from the Siti Cable. The petition was filed on 24 August 2015 challenging the disconnection notices issued by the MSO under clauses 6.2 and 6.5 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) Regulations2012 issued on grounds of non-payment of the monthly subscription dues. Mutual negotiations before the Mediation Centre failed.

On 15 December 2015, it was stated on behalf of the MSO that as on 31 October 2015, the cumulative dues against the 269 LCOs amounted to Rs l.65 crore for the a Ia carte channels and for the channels that are given to the LCOs in bouquets, approximately Rs 25 lakh calculated @ Rs.60 per STB. It was also stated on behalf of the MSO that under the agreement with certain broadcasters, it was getting the broadcasters’ channels on the latter’s RIO rates and it was no longer possible for it to give those channels in any packages and any LCO wanting those channels could take them on RIO rates.

The Kolkata petitions were filed by the Association on behalf of 42 LCOs and later on behalf of another 60LCOs. All these LCOs operate in Kolkata and receive TV signals from Hathway. Most of the LCOs are operating in areas that came under DAS transmission in phase-II and a few are operating in areas that come under DAS transmission in phase-III. In these two cases, the LCOs sought a direction to the MSO to restore supply of signals to some of the STBs that, they alleged, were disconnected arbitrarily and not to interfere with the smooth and good quality supply of signals to the LCOs.

According to the petitioner, as per the understanding between the two sides, they were liable to pay Rs 110 per STB as monthly subscription fee for all the channels being received by them and regardless of the subscription fee charged by them from the individual subscribers but the MSO had raised the subscription fee and was trying to enforce package billing that would further greatly increase the monthly subscription fee. Though the parties are in interconnect arrangement for a long time, there is no interconnect agreements.

May 17, 2016
TDSAT asks 4 LCOs to pay Rs 17 lakh to MSM Discovery

New Delhi: Four local cable operators have been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay to MSM Discovery Pvt Ltd dues amounting to Rs 1,701,933 for varying periods along with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of the petitions.

Srishti Cable TV Network Ltd has to pay an amount of Rs 7,00,514 (apart from the 9 percent interest).as it cleared substantial payments out of the total Rs 31,56,803 in course of negotiations for a fresh agreement.

Shri Radhey Cable TV Network has to pay Rs.3,07,103 as on the date of deactivation, apart from the interest of nine percent.

Sky TV Network of Madhya Pradesh has to pay Rs 5,20,298 (apart from the interest as decreed) as the deactivation of signals was effected during the terms of the agreement.

Mee Channel Network of Andhra Pradesh has to clear Rs l,74,018 (in addition to the interest as decreed) as it had cleared some payments out of the total Rs 2,38,233.

Though all the agreements were executed on 1 April 2014, they came to end on different dates and therefore legal notices were also sent on different dates.

None of the four LCOs appeared before the tribunal, which held that “the case of the petitioner is fully supported by oral and documentary evidences that remain completely unchallenged and uncontroverted before the tribunal. There is, therefore, no reason not to accept the petitioner’s claim.”

May 16, 2016
TDSAT asks 4 LCOs to pay Rs 17 lakh to MSM Discovery

New Delhi: Four local cable operators have been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay to MSM Discovery Pvt Ltd dues amounting to Rs 1,701,933 for varying periods along with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of the petitions.

Srishti Cable TV Network Ltd has to pay an amount of Rs 7,00,514 (apart from the 9 percent interest).as it cleared substantial payments out of the total Rs 31,56,803 in course of negotiations for a fresh agreement.

Shri Radhey Cable TV Network has to pay Rs.3,07,103 as on the date of deactivation, apart from the interest of nine percent.

Sky TV Network of Madhya Pradesh has to pay Rs 5,20,298 (apart from the interest as decreed) as the deactivation of signals was effected during the terms of the agreement.

Mee Channel Network of Andhra Pradesh has to clear Rs l,74,018 (in addition to the interest as decreed) as it had cleared some payments out of the total Rs 2,38,233.

Though all the agreements were executed on 1 April 2014, they came to end on different dates and therefore legal notices were also sent on different dates.

None of the four LCOs appeared before the tribunal, which held that “the case of the petitioner is fully supported by oral and documentary evidences that remain completely unchallenged and uncontroverted before the tribunal. There is, therefore, no reason not to accept the petitioner’s claim.”

May 16, 2016
TDSAT asks Bihar MSO to pay Rs 5.42 lakh with interest to MSM

NEW DELHI: Multisystem operator Dream Entertainment of Bihar has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay to MSM Discovery Pvt Ltd sums of Rs l,31,399 and Rs 4,11,001 respectively as clearance of arrears.

Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava also directed the MSO to pay interest @ 18percent from 1January 2014 to 16 April 2015, the date of deactivation of signals and @ 9 percent from 17 July 2015, the date of filing of the petition before the tribunal, till the date of realization.

It said that the case of MSM was fully supported by oral and documentary evidences that remain completely unchallenged and uncontroverted before the tribunal as the MSO did not appear.

According to MSM, it had entered into a subscription agreement with the MSO on 3 June 2014 for retransmission of its TV channels in the town of Begusarai on payment of the fixed amount of Rs 78,320 (exclusive of taxes) as monthly subscription charges. The subscription agreement was for the period 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014. It had entered into another subscription agreement with the MSO on10 October 2014 for retransmission of its TV channels in the town of Begusarai on payment of the fixed amount of Rs.64,670 (exclusive of taxes) as monthly subscription charges. The subscription agreement was for the period 1 April 2014 to 30 April 2015.

MSM said the MSO was irregular in payment of its monthly subscription fee, it defaulted on the monthlypayments and as a result arrears of subscription fees amounting to Rs 5,42,009 became due from it as on 16 April 2015. The respondent did not pay its dues despite repeated reminders and so MSM issued a notice on 23 January.2015 and a public notice in local newspapers remained unanswered. MSM deactivated its signals to the respondent on 16 April 2015 and filed the petition after sending a legal notice to the MSO.

May 16, 2016
TDSAT asks Bihar MSO to pay Rs 5.42 lakh with interest to MSM

NEW DELHI: Multisystem operator Dream Entertainment of Bihar has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay to MSM Discovery Pvt Ltd sums of Rs l,31,399 and Rs 4,11,001 respectively as clearance of arrears.

Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava also directed the MSO to pay interest @ 18percent from 1January 2014 to 16 April 2015, the date of deactivation of signals and @ 9 percent from 17 July 2015, the date of filing of the petition before the tribunal, till the date of realization.

It said that the case of MSM was fully supported by oral and documentary evidences that remain completely unchallenged and uncontroverted before the tribunal as the MSO did not appear.

According to MSM, it had entered into a subscription agreement with the MSO on 3 June 2014 for retransmission of its TV channels in the town of Begusarai on payment of the fixed amount of Rs 78,320 (exclusive of taxes) as monthly subscription charges. The subscription agreement was for the period 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014. It had entered into another subscription agreement with the MSO on10 October 2014 for retransmission of its TV channels in the town of Begusarai on payment of the fixed amount of Rs.64,670 (exclusive of taxes) as monthly subscription charges. The subscription agreement was for the period 1 April 2014 to 30 April 2015.

MSM said the MSO was irregular in payment of its monthly subscription fee, it defaulted on the monthlypayments and as a result arrears of subscription fees amounting to Rs 5,42,009 became due from it as on 16 April 2015. The respondent did not pay its dues despite repeated reminders and so MSM issued a notice on 23 January.2015 and a public notice in local newspapers remained unanswered. MSM deactivated its signals to the respondent on 16 April 2015 and filed the petition after sending a legal notice to the MSO.

May 16, 2016