ITV

Category: TDSAT

  • TDSAT vacates order staying disconnection of signals to MSO

    TDSAT vacates order staying disconnection of signals to MSO

    NEW DELHI: An order staying disconnection of signals of Eenadu TV to Hyderabad Cable Digital Services Pvt. Ltd has been vacated by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    Chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said the order given late last week was being vacated as Eenadu TV Counsel Prabhat Ranjan had produced ample documents that “belie the allegations made in the petition that the supply of signals was abruptly disconnected without any notices, etc.”

    The Tribunal said that Ranjan had produced documents that showed that the multi-system operator owes a substantial amount as dues of subscription fees. Ranjan also stated that the interconnect agreement between the two sides had come to an end.

    Listing the matter for 27 May, the Tribunal asked Ranjan to file Eenadu TV’s reply
    bringing all the documents on record and asked the MSO to file a rejoinder, if any, within a week thereafter.

     

  • TDSAT vacates order staying disconnection of signals to MSO

    TDSAT vacates order staying disconnection of signals to MSO

    NEW DELHI: An order staying disconnection of signals of Eenadu TV to Hyderabad Cable Digital Services Pvt. Ltd has been vacated by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    Chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said the order given late last week was being vacated as Eenadu TV Counsel Prabhat Ranjan had produced ample documents that “belie the allegations made in the petition that the supply of signals was abruptly disconnected without any notices, etc.”

    The Tribunal said that Ranjan had produced documents that showed that the multi-system operator owes a substantial amount as dues of subscription fees. Ranjan also stated that the interconnect agreement between the two sides had come to an end.

    Listing the matter for 27 May, the Tribunal asked Ranjan to file Eenadu TV’s reply
    bringing all the documents on record and asked the MSO to file a rejoinder, if any, within a week thereafter.

     

  • TDSAT: Airan Consultants to pay UCN Cable Rs 50 lakh plus interest

    TDSAT: Airan Consultants to pay UCN Cable Rs 50 lakh plus interest

    NEW DELHI: Airan Consultants Pvt Ltd has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay to UCN Cable Network Pvt Ltd a sum of Rs. 50,00,020 with interest at the rate of 8 percent from 5 May 2015 till date of payment for carrying the News Express channel on its network.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava, who heard the matter ex parte as Airan Consultants Pvt. Ltd did not put in an appearance, came to their judgment on the basis of the documents presented and the lone witness examined.

    While UCN Cable had demanded interest at 24 per cent, the tribunal confined it to 8 per cent which will be paid till the date of the final payment. 

    The tribunal said in the case of the second agreement, Airan had failed to fulfil its obligation and not even responded to the communication from the petitioner for payment.

    UCN Cable said the two parties executed an agreement in November 2013 for the period 6 November 2013 to 5 November 2014 for carrying the channels of Airan Consultants on its network and placing it in the digital and U band, below 800 mghz in analogue mode in the territory mentioned in the agreement. UCN has stated that it raised invoices in pursuance of this agreement and received payment as well against them. Both parties in furtherance of their relationship executed another channel placement agreement for one year from 6 November 2014 till 5 November 2015. The amount for the placement of the news channel “JIA News” was Rs 89 lakh per annum inclusive of all taxes except service tax and payable quarterly in advance.

    UCN says it fulfilled its obligation in respect of carrying the new channel on its network and placing it as agreed. Accordingly, it raised invoice for an amount of Rs 50,00,020. It stated that Airan sent a photocopy of a cheque dated 15 February.2015 drawn on Bank of India, Corporate Banking Branch, Nagpur, for an amount of Rs 45,000,18 through WhatsApp promising to deposit it directly into UCN’s account. UCN has said that Airan not only failed to deposit the cheque but did not respond either to UCN’s e-mails of 27 February, 9 March, 30 April and 1 May 2015. Thereafter, UCN served a legal notice on 3 August 2015.

  • TDSAT: Airan Consultants to pay UCN Cable Rs 50 lakh plus interest

    TDSAT: Airan Consultants to pay UCN Cable Rs 50 lakh plus interest

    NEW DELHI: Airan Consultants Pvt Ltd has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay to UCN Cable Network Pvt Ltd a sum of Rs. 50,00,020 with interest at the rate of 8 percent from 5 May 2015 till date of payment for carrying the News Express channel on its network.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava, who heard the matter ex parte as Airan Consultants Pvt. Ltd did not put in an appearance, came to their judgment on the basis of the documents presented and the lone witness examined.

    While UCN Cable had demanded interest at 24 per cent, the tribunal confined it to 8 per cent which will be paid till the date of the final payment. 

    The tribunal said in the case of the second agreement, Airan had failed to fulfil its obligation and not even responded to the communication from the petitioner for payment.

    UCN Cable said the two parties executed an agreement in November 2013 for the period 6 November 2013 to 5 November 2014 for carrying the channels of Airan Consultants on its network and placing it in the digital and U band, below 800 mghz in analogue mode in the territory mentioned in the agreement. UCN has stated that it raised invoices in pursuance of this agreement and received payment as well against them. Both parties in furtherance of their relationship executed another channel placement agreement for one year from 6 November 2014 till 5 November 2015. The amount for the placement of the news channel “JIA News” was Rs 89 lakh per annum inclusive of all taxes except service tax and payable quarterly in advance.

    UCN says it fulfilled its obligation in respect of carrying the new channel on its network and placing it as agreed. Accordingly, it raised invoice for an amount of Rs 50,00,020. It stated that Airan sent a photocopy of a cheque dated 15 February.2015 drawn on Bank of India, Corporate Banking Branch, Nagpur, for an amount of Rs 45,000,18 through WhatsApp promising to deposit it directly into UCN’s account. UCN has said that Airan not only failed to deposit the cheque but did not respond either to UCN’s e-mails of 27 February, 9 March, 30 April and 1 May 2015. Thereafter, UCN served a legal notice on 3 August 2015.

  • TDSAT: MSO Honey Sky Vision’s petition against INX News dismissed

    TDSAT: MSO Honey Sky Vision’s petition against INX News dismissed

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a petition by multi-system operator Honey Sky Vision wanting a decree against INX News for certain payments.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said, “Since the agreement itself fails to get our acceptance and absence of invoices and proper statement of account, there is no justification for entertaining this petition. Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.”

    Honey Sky Vision had filed for issuance of order/decree in its favour and against INX News for an amount of Rs 23,59,560 as the alleged outstanding amount due in lieu of placement of channel News X on its network. Additionally an order awarding interest at the rate of 18 percent in favour of the petitioner had also been sought.

    The case of the MSO is that the INX News had entered into an agreement with it for placement of its channel News X on the petitioner’s network. The agreement was for the period 28 September 2011 to 27 September.2012 and for a consideration of Rs. 21 lakh per annum plus service tax as payable.

    The MSO claimed it complied with all its obligations; carried/placed News X at desired frequency/band to the complete satisfaction of the respondent whose representatives/officials regularly visited the networks/units of the petitioner in various areas of Delhi.

    The petitioner also claims to have raised/provided monthly invoices to the respondent for placement of its channel. However, INX News completely denied all allegations made by the petitioner including execution of any placement agreement between the parties.

    The MSO produced copy of a placement agreement which only bore its representative’s signature and not those of INX News. The MSO also failed to produce the invoices it claimed to have raised.

    The tribunal, which also examined witnesses, said, “In view of facts emerging on the basis of pleadings, documents and evidences adduced, it is extremely difficult to accept the agreement, in the form it has been produced before us, as a legitimate and validly executed agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. Rather we hold and find that there was no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent.”

  • TDSAT: MSO Honey Sky Vision’s petition against INX News dismissed

    TDSAT: MSO Honey Sky Vision’s petition against INX News dismissed

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a petition by multi-system operator Honey Sky Vision wanting a decree against INX News for certain payments.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said, “Since the agreement itself fails to get our acceptance and absence of invoices and proper statement of account, there is no justification for entertaining this petition. Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.”

    Honey Sky Vision had filed for issuance of order/decree in its favour and against INX News for an amount of Rs 23,59,560 as the alleged outstanding amount due in lieu of placement of channel News X on its network. Additionally an order awarding interest at the rate of 18 percent in favour of the petitioner had also been sought.

    The case of the MSO is that the INX News had entered into an agreement with it for placement of its channel News X on the petitioner’s network. The agreement was for the period 28 September 2011 to 27 September.2012 and for a consideration of Rs. 21 lakh per annum plus service tax as payable.

    The MSO claimed it complied with all its obligations; carried/placed News X at desired frequency/band to the complete satisfaction of the respondent whose representatives/officials regularly visited the networks/units of the petitioner in various areas of Delhi.

    The petitioner also claims to have raised/provided monthly invoices to the respondent for placement of its channel. However, INX News completely denied all allegations made by the petitioner including execution of any placement agreement between the parties.

    The MSO produced copy of a placement agreement which only bore its representative’s signature and not those of INX News. The MSO also failed to produce the invoices it claimed to have raised.

    The tribunal, which also examined witnesses, said, “In view of facts emerging on the basis of pleadings, documents and evidences adduced, it is extremely difficult to accept the agreement, in the form it has been produced before us, as a legitimate and validly executed agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. Rather we hold and find that there was no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent.”

  • TDSAT: Sai Prasad Media to pay UCN Cable Rs 67 lakh with 8% interest

    TDSAT: Sai Prasad Media to pay UCN Cable Rs 67 lakh with 8% interest

    NEW DELHI: Sai Prasad Media Pvt Ltd has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay to UCN Cable Network Pvt Ltd a sum of Rs 67,21,500 with interest at the rate of 8 percent from 28 August 2015 till date of payment for carrying the News Express channel on its network.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava, who heard the matter ex parte as Sai Prasad Media did not put in an appearance, came to their judgment on the basis of the documents presented and the lone witness examined.

    The tribunal said: “In view of the facts and circumstances as well as documents and evidences available in support of petitioner’s claim, as well as consistent refusal on the part of respondent to present its  case by way of nonappearance,  we find  and hold that the agreement has been acted upon by both sides; albeit  only partially by the respondent.”

    While UCN Cable had demanded interest at 24 per cent, the Tribunal confined it to 8 per cent but said the payment has to be made within eight weeks.

    The petitioner said it had entered into an agreement dated 29 October 2012 with the respondent for the period 1 August to mid-.2013 for carrying the latter’s channel News Express on its network. According to the petitioner, a fresh agreement dated 14 June 2014 was again executed between the petitioner and the respondent for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. The consideration money for placement of the news channel (News Express) was Rs 75 lakh excluding applicable service tax.

    UCN says it carried the channels from its network and placed them on the desired frequency as mentioned in the agreement; and raised regular invoices upon the respondent. However, the respondent in breach of the terms of the agreement did not make payment of the agreed amount; and the total outstanding as on 31 March 2015 amounted to Rs 67,21,500. The petitioner has also submitted that under the previous agreement as well, Sai Prasad Media had defaulted to the extent of Rs.93,63,328 due and payable to the petitioner till 31 March 2014.

    It has been stated that only in pursuance of a notice of 5 March 2014, Sai Prasad Media made a payment of Rs 90,55,038 on 7 April 2014. However, no payment was received from Sai Prasad Media thereafter. It has been stated that another notice dated 18 March 2015 was served upon the respondent for payment of Rs 67,21,500.

    The sole witness on behalf of the petitioner Amit Aggarwal, working as manager, Legal in the petitioner company submitted his evidence through affidavit and he has formally proved the documents annexed with the petition. Aggarwal was examined by the Advocate Commissioner and his evidence has been taken on record.

  • TDSAT: Sai Prasad Media to pay UCN Cable Rs 67 lakh with 8% interest

    TDSAT: Sai Prasad Media to pay UCN Cable Rs 67 lakh with 8% interest

    NEW DELHI: Sai Prasad Media Pvt Ltd has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay to UCN Cable Network Pvt Ltd a sum of Rs 67,21,500 with interest at the rate of 8 percent from 28 August 2015 till date of payment for carrying the News Express channel on its network.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava, who heard the matter ex parte as Sai Prasad Media did not put in an appearance, came to their judgment on the basis of the documents presented and the lone witness examined.

    The tribunal said: “In view of the facts and circumstances as well as documents and evidences available in support of petitioner’s claim, as well as consistent refusal on the part of respondent to present its  case by way of nonappearance,  we find  and hold that the agreement has been acted upon by both sides; albeit  only partially by the respondent.”

    While UCN Cable had demanded interest at 24 per cent, the Tribunal confined it to 8 per cent but said the payment has to be made within eight weeks.

    The petitioner said it had entered into an agreement dated 29 October 2012 with the respondent for the period 1 August to mid-.2013 for carrying the latter’s channel News Express on its network. According to the petitioner, a fresh agreement dated 14 June 2014 was again executed between the petitioner and the respondent for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. The consideration money for placement of the news channel (News Express) was Rs 75 lakh excluding applicable service tax.

    UCN says it carried the channels from its network and placed them on the desired frequency as mentioned in the agreement; and raised regular invoices upon the respondent. However, the respondent in breach of the terms of the agreement did not make payment of the agreed amount; and the total outstanding as on 31 March 2015 amounted to Rs 67,21,500. The petitioner has also submitted that under the previous agreement as well, Sai Prasad Media had defaulted to the extent of Rs.93,63,328 due and payable to the petitioner till 31 March 2014.

    It has been stated that only in pursuance of a notice of 5 March 2014, Sai Prasad Media made a payment of Rs 90,55,038 on 7 April 2014. However, no payment was received from Sai Prasad Media thereafter. It has been stated that another notice dated 18 March 2015 was served upon the respondent for payment of Rs 67,21,500.

    The sole witness on behalf of the petitioner Amit Aggarwal, working as manager, Legal in the petitioner company submitted his evidence through affidavit and he has formally proved the documents annexed with the petition. Aggarwal was examined by the Advocate Commissioner and his evidence has been taken on record.

  • Challenge to denial of security clearance by Home Ministry not maintainable before TDSAT

    Challenge to denial of security clearance by Home Ministry not maintainable before TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: Can the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal examine denial of security clearance to multi system operators? Clearly, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava have held that this falls outside the ambit of Section 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act.

    A petition by Positiv TV Pvt Ltd was dismissed by the tribunal as Information and Broadcasting ministry counsel Rajeev Sharma said permission to set up teleport (uplinking hub) at Guwahati and Noida had been refused because the Home ministry had refused to give security clearance as required under clause 9.2 read with clauses 10.4, 5.8 and 5.9 of the Guidelines for Grant of Permission dated 5 December 2011.

    The I and B ministry had refused permission in a letter issued on 3 March.
    The tribunal noted that the core question that arose for adjudication was not the cancellation of permission by the MIB but the decision of the MHA to not grant the security clearance to the petitioner.

    Home ministry counsel Anshuman Upadhyay described as incorrect the statement by Positiv counsel Mukul Gupta that his client had not been informed about the Home ministry decision.

    The tribunal said: “We are clearly of the view that the decision of the MHA to grant or not to grant security clearance to a telecom service provider does not come within the ambit of section 14 A and thus lies beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal”. 

    It therefore dismissed as not maintainable the petition, “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case”.

    However, the tribunal said it will be open to the petitioner to seek its remedies before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.

  • Challenge to denial of security clearance by Home Ministry not maintainable before TDSAT

    Challenge to denial of security clearance by Home Ministry not maintainable before TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: Can the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal examine denial of security clearance to multi system operators? Clearly, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava have held that this falls outside the ambit of Section 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act.

    A petition by Positiv TV Pvt Ltd was dismissed by the tribunal as Information and Broadcasting ministry counsel Rajeev Sharma said permission to set up teleport (uplinking hub) at Guwahati and Noida had been refused because the Home ministry had refused to give security clearance as required under clause 9.2 read with clauses 10.4, 5.8 and 5.9 of the Guidelines for Grant of Permission dated 5 December 2011.

    The I and B ministry had refused permission in a letter issued on 3 March.
    The tribunal noted that the core question that arose for adjudication was not the cancellation of permission by the MIB but the decision of the MHA to not grant the security clearance to the petitioner.

    Home ministry counsel Anshuman Upadhyay described as incorrect the statement by Positiv counsel Mukul Gupta that his client had not been informed about the Home ministry decision.

    The tribunal said: “We are clearly of the view that the decision of the MHA to grant or not to grant security clearance to a telecom service provider does not come within the ambit of section 14 A and thus lies beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal”. 

    It therefore dismissed as not maintainable the petition, “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case”.

    However, the tribunal said it will be open to the petitioner to seek its remedies before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.