Category: TDSAT

  • Canara Star asked by TDSAT to pay Star India Rs 18.91 lakh subject to final outcome of dispute

    Canara Star asked by TDSAT to pay Star India Rs 18.91 lakh subject to final outcome of dispute

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed  Canara Star Communications Pvt Ltd Karnataka, to pay to Star India a sum of Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal up to 3 March 2016.

    Chairman  Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said “These payments are interim and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party.”

    Rejecting the plea by the multi-system operator that it was entitled to a further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs, the tribunal fixed the matter for further hearing on 19 April.

    The tribunal noted that there is no material to prima facie substantiate this assertion and saw no reason to allow any further reduction in the dues which the petitioner could be liable to pay to the respondent as an interim measure.

    Canara Star had originally come before the tribunal against disconnection notices by Star India as for default in payment. One of the grounds on which the disconnection notice were challenged was that another MSO had started operating in those areas and as a result the petitioner’s subscriber base had gone down substantially and the petitioner had been making request for downgradation of its subscriber base and consequently a reduction in the fixed fee payable by it as monthly subscription fee.  There appeared to be some substance in the petitioner’s grievance and on a joint request, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre.

    The tribunal was informed that before the Mediation Centre, the parties were able to arrive at some understanding in regard to Kumta and Bhatkal areas but Canara Star was also getting signals from Star India for transmission in the DAS area of Bangalore and there too the MSO happened to be in default in payment of the subscription fees.

    Star India wanted a comprehensive settlement that should cover both analogue and digital areas covering not only Kumta and Bhatkal but Bangalore also. A comprehensive settlement, as desired by Star India could not take place and the matter came back to the tribunal.

    The subscription agreement between the parties relating to Kumta and Bhatkal came to end on 31 June 2015.  Under the subscription agreement, the petitioner was liable to pay the monthly subscription fee at the rate of Rs.2,60,081 per month for Kumta and Rs.2,10,716 per month for Bhatkal.  In February 2015 when the petition was filed before the Tribunal the dues against the petitioner amounted to Rs.32.95 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. By order of 3 February 2015, the petitioner was directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount in two installments subject to which Star India was directed not to disconnect the supply of its signals to Canara Star. Thereafter, the MSO had made some further payments of admitted dues in terms of orders passed by the tribunal from time to time and it continues to receive the signals for transmission in those areas.

    No fresh subscription agreement has so far been executed between the parties.

    According to the respondent, at the rate fixed under the expired agreement, its dues against the MSO now amount to Rs.48.94 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. Star India counsel Kunal Tandon however submitted that in course of the mediation proceedings, Star India had agreed to give the MSO a discount of Rs.1,07,305 per month for Kumta area and Rs.67,703 for Bhatkal area with effect from November 2014.  He submitted that if computations are made taking into account the discount to which the respondent had agreed and computing the monthly subscription fees after allowing the discounts, the dues would come to Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal upto 31.03.2016.

    However, Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh wanted further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs.

  • Canara Star asked by TDSAT to pay Star India Rs 18.91 lakh subject to final outcome of dispute

    Canara Star asked by TDSAT to pay Star India Rs 18.91 lakh subject to final outcome of dispute

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed  Canara Star Communications Pvt Ltd Karnataka, to pay to Star India a sum of Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal up to 3 March 2016.

    Chairman  Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said “These payments are interim and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party.”

    Rejecting the plea by the multi-system operator that it was entitled to a further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs, the tribunal fixed the matter for further hearing on 19 April.

    The tribunal noted that there is no material to prima facie substantiate this assertion and saw no reason to allow any further reduction in the dues which the petitioner could be liable to pay to the respondent as an interim measure.

    Canara Star had originally come before the tribunal against disconnection notices by Star India as for default in payment. One of the grounds on which the disconnection notice were challenged was that another MSO had started operating in those areas and as a result the petitioner’s subscriber base had gone down substantially and the petitioner had been making request for downgradation of its subscriber base and consequently a reduction in the fixed fee payable by it as monthly subscription fee.  There appeared to be some substance in the petitioner’s grievance and on a joint request, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre.

    The tribunal was informed that before the Mediation Centre, the parties were able to arrive at some understanding in regard to Kumta and Bhatkal areas but Canara Star was also getting signals from Star India for transmission in the DAS area of Bangalore and there too the MSO happened to be in default in payment of the subscription fees.

    Star India wanted a comprehensive settlement that should cover both analogue and digital areas covering not only Kumta and Bhatkal but Bangalore also. A comprehensive settlement, as desired by Star India could not take place and the matter came back to the tribunal.

    The subscription agreement between the parties relating to Kumta and Bhatkal came to end on 31 June 2015.  Under the subscription agreement, the petitioner was liable to pay the monthly subscription fee at the rate of Rs.2,60,081 per month for Kumta and Rs.2,10,716 per month for Bhatkal.  In February 2015 when the petition was filed before the Tribunal the dues against the petitioner amounted to Rs.32.95 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. By order of 3 February 2015, the petitioner was directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount in two installments subject to which Star India was directed not to disconnect the supply of its signals to Canara Star. Thereafter, the MSO had made some further payments of admitted dues in terms of orders passed by the tribunal from time to time and it continues to receive the signals for transmission in those areas.

    No fresh subscription agreement has so far been executed between the parties.

    According to the respondent, at the rate fixed under the expired agreement, its dues against the MSO now amount to Rs.48.94 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. Star India counsel Kunal Tandon however submitted that in course of the mediation proceedings, Star India had agreed to give the MSO a discount of Rs.1,07,305 per month for Kumta area and Rs.67,703 for Bhatkal area with effect from November 2014.  He submitted that if computations are made taking into account the discount to which the respondent had agreed and computing the monthly subscription fees after allowing the discounts, the dues would come to Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal upto 31.03.2016.

    However, Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh wanted further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs.

  • Haryana MSO petition against Star India dismissed by TDSAT for non-prosecution

    Haryana MSO petition against Star India dismissed by TDSAT for non-prosecution

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a petition by K R Cable Network, Haryana, against Star India for non-prosecution as no step was taken by the Haryana MSO to follow up on the case.

    The Tribunal noted that the matter was at a stage where the Haryana MSO was required to adduce its evidence on affidavit. However, despite repeated opportunities given to it, no evidence is filed.

    The Tribunal said that from the order sheet, it appeared that on a number of dates no one appeared for the petitioner. Thus it was “clear that after having filed the petition, the petitioner has lost interest in the matter.”

    Star India counsel Shilpa Gupta stated that the filing of the petition was an abuse of the process of law in as much as in the petition the petitioner claimed a much larger area than the area expressly defined in the interconnect agreement between the parties.

    In case Star India has any claim against the petitioner, the Tribunal said it will be open to it to seek its remedy in accordance with law.

  • Haryana MSO petition against Star India dismissed by TDSAT for non-prosecution

    Haryana MSO petition against Star India dismissed by TDSAT for non-prosecution

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a petition by K R Cable Network, Haryana, against Star India for non-prosecution as no step was taken by the Haryana MSO to follow up on the case.

    The Tribunal noted that the matter was at a stage where the Haryana MSO was required to adduce its evidence on affidavit. However, despite repeated opportunities given to it, no evidence is filed.

    The Tribunal said that from the order sheet, it appeared that on a number of dates no one appeared for the petitioner. Thus it was “clear that after having filed the petition, the petitioner has lost interest in the matter.”

    Star India counsel Shilpa Gupta stated that the filing of the petition was an abuse of the process of law in as much as in the petition the petitioner claimed a much larger area than the area expressly defined in the interconnect agreement between the parties.

    In case Star India has any claim against the petitioner, the Tribunal said it will be open to it to seek its remedy in accordance with law.

  • TDSAT directs Induslnd to pay Rs 26.55 crore to Taj TV subject to verification of March payment

    TDSAT directs Induslnd to pay Rs 26.55 crore to Taj TV subject to verification of March payment

    NEW DELHl: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd to pay at least the minimum Rs.26,55,14,607 demanded by Taj TV subject to verification of payments made in March. Consequently, Indusind Counsel Vandana D Jaisingh handed over to Taj TV counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia, four cheques amounting to Rs.10 crores.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava directed Indusind to pay the balance amount of Rs.16,55,14,607 subject to verification of the amount paid by it in the month of March 2016.  
    The cheques would be dated 31 March but Bhatia said that they would be presented for encashment before the bank only in the first week of May. Apart from this payment, Indusind was liable to make payment for the month of April subject to any special discount, if any, in terms of the agreement.

    At the outset, the Tribunal noted that during the pendency of the petition, the two sides had executed a memo of understanding (MOU) on 30 March covering the period 01 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, that is to say, the period when there was no agreement between the parties and Indusind continued to receive signals from Taj TV.
    But the Tribunal noted that: “It is ironical that having executed the agreement on 30 March, the parties are once again in dispute in regard to the Indusind’s liability for payment under the MoU.”

    On a prima facie reading, the MoU crystallised Indusind’s liability up to 31 January 2016 at the sum of Rs.43,61,34,240. Beyond 31 January, the monthly subscription fees for both Taj and Turner TV channels for the months of February and March 2016 came to Rs.15,41,74,250 (at the rate of Rs.7,70,87,125 for each month for Taj and Turner TV channels).  Thus, the total liability of Indusind up to 31 March.came to Rs.44,59,15,007 but taking into account certain payments made by it in the month of March, the liability went down to Rs.43,61,34,240.

    Indusind also claimed certain deductions in terms of the special discount given by the respondent after the execution of the agreement. Indusind further claimed certain deductions on account of TDS.

    Bhatia submitted before the Tribunal a chart that took into account the special discounts and on a deduction made for the same and Indusind’s liability further went down to Rs.26,55,14,607.

    According to this chart, the collection received from Indusind in March 2016 amounted to Rs.9,97,80,767 but Jaisingh, wanted to verify the correctness of this figure as she said the payment made by Indusind in March 2016 could be a little more than the figure shown in Bhatia’s chart.

     

  • TDSAT directs Induslnd to pay Rs 26.55 crore to Taj TV subject to verification of March payment

    TDSAT directs Induslnd to pay Rs 26.55 crore to Taj TV subject to verification of March payment

    NEW DELHl: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd to pay at least the minimum Rs.26,55,14,607 demanded by Taj TV subject to verification of payments made in March. Consequently, Indusind Counsel Vandana D Jaisingh handed over to Taj TV counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia, four cheques amounting to Rs.10 crores.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava directed Indusind to pay the balance amount of Rs.16,55,14,607 subject to verification of the amount paid by it in the month of March 2016.  
    The cheques would be dated 31 March but Bhatia said that they would be presented for encashment before the bank only in the first week of May. Apart from this payment, Indusind was liable to make payment for the month of April subject to any special discount, if any, in terms of the agreement.

    At the outset, the Tribunal noted that during the pendency of the petition, the two sides had executed a memo of understanding (MOU) on 30 March covering the period 01 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, that is to say, the period when there was no agreement between the parties and Indusind continued to receive signals from Taj TV.
    But the Tribunal noted that: “It is ironical that having executed the agreement on 30 March, the parties are once again in dispute in regard to the Indusind’s liability for payment under the MoU.”

    On a prima facie reading, the MoU crystallised Indusind’s liability up to 31 January 2016 at the sum of Rs.43,61,34,240. Beyond 31 January, the monthly subscription fees for both Taj and Turner TV channels for the months of February and March 2016 came to Rs.15,41,74,250 (at the rate of Rs.7,70,87,125 for each month for Taj and Turner TV channels).  Thus, the total liability of Indusind up to 31 March.came to Rs.44,59,15,007 but taking into account certain payments made by it in the month of March, the liability went down to Rs.43,61,34,240.

    Indusind also claimed certain deductions in terms of the special discount given by the respondent after the execution of the agreement. Indusind further claimed certain deductions on account of TDS.

    Bhatia submitted before the Tribunal a chart that took into account the special discounts and on a deduction made for the same and Indusind’s liability further went down to Rs.26,55,14,607.

    According to this chart, the collection received from Indusind in March 2016 amounted to Rs.9,97,80,767 but Jaisingh, wanted to verify the correctness of this figure as she said the payment made by Indusind in March 2016 could be a little more than the figure shown in Bhatia’s chart.

     

  • TDSAT: Rohtak LCOs have by and large complied with compilation of SAFs

    TDSAT: Rohtak LCOs have by and large complied with compilation of SAFs

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has described as ‘unfounded’ the allegations made on behalf of Siti Cable Networks with regard to submission of subscription application forms (SAFs) of local cable operators of Rohtak.

    Under the directions of the tribunal, a joint inspection of the website of the Rohtak  Cable Operator Association, Haryana  was completed, and the report duly signed by counsel for two sides and the director of TDSAT.

    The tribunal said that according to the joint report, the LCOs had jointly and collectively submitted around 60 per cent of SAFs to Siti Cable Networks by 30 March. Some individual LCOs had submitted as much as 90 per cent of SAFs.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava directed the LCOs being represented in this petition to complete the submission of their respective SAFs as early as possible The matter was listed for 27 April when some other similar matters are also due to come up.

     

  • TDSAT: Rohtak LCOs have by and large complied with compilation of SAFs

    TDSAT: Rohtak LCOs have by and large complied with compilation of SAFs

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has described as ‘unfounded’ the allegations made on behalf of Siti Cable Networks with regard to submission of subscription application forms (SAFs) of local cable operators of Rohtak.

    Under the directions of the tribunal, a joint inspection of the website of the Rohtak  Cable Operator Association, Haryana  was completed, and the report duly signed by counsel for two sides and the director of TDSAT.

    The tribunal said that according to the joint report, the LCOs had jointly and collectively submitted around 60 per cent of SAFs to Siti Cable Networks by 30 March. Some individual LCOs had submitted as much as 90 per cent of SAFs.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava directed the LCOs being represented in this petition to complete the submission of their respective SAFs as early as possible The matter was listed for 27 April when some other similar matters are also due to come up.

     

  • TDSAT to hear LCO cases against Siti Cable and Hathway afresh in light of new TRAI regulations

    TDSAT to hear LCO cases against Siti Cable and Hathway afresh in light of new TRAI regulations

    NEW DELHI: Local cable operators who are members of Karnataka State Digital Cable TV Operators Welfare Association and the Cable Operators Sangram Association of Kolkata have told the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal that they will not migrate to any other distributor without seeking prior permission from the tribunal.

    This assurance was given in three cases – one filed by the Karnataka Association against Siti Cable Networks, and the other two by the Kolkata body against Hathway Cable and Datacom. Counsel Nittin Bhatia made the statement on behalf of the members of these association who were involved in the petitions.

    The tribunal was informed by Siti Cable counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia and Hathway counsel Jayant K. Mehta about the notifications issued by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on 7 January and 15 March this year which ‘make some fundamental changes in the DAS Interconnection Regulations and have a direct bearing upon the controversies in these cases.’

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava listed the matter for 27 April for hearing the parties further in the light of the amendments introduced in the DAS Interconnect Regulations.

    The tribunal said that “In the meanwhile, the respondents may apprise the respective petitioners separately and also through their counsel Mr Nittin Bhatia regarding the rates and the terms and conditions including the respective rights and obligations of the parties under clause 10 of Schedule IV of the notification dated 15 March 2016, that the respondents might have executed with any other LCO operating in that area.”

    The Tribunal also made it clear that if any of the LCOs being represented through these petitions were willing to execute the agreement with the respondents on those terms, they were free to do so.

  • TDSAT to hear LCO cases against Siti Cable and Hathway afresh in light of new TRAI regulations

    TDSAT to hear LCO cases against Siti Cable and Hathway afresh in light of new TRAI regulations

    NEW DELHI: Local cable operators who are members of Karnataka State Digital Cable TV Operators Welfare Association and the Cable Operators Sangram Association of Kolkata have told the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal that they will not migrate to any other distributor without seeking prior permission from the tribunal.

    This assurance was given in three cases – one filed by the Karnataka Association against Siti Cable Networks, and the other two by the Kolkata body against Hathway Cable and Datacom. Counsel Nittin Bhatia made the statement on behalf of the members of these association who were involved in the petitions.

    The tribunal was informed by Siti Cable counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia and Hathway counsel Jayant K. Mehta about the notifications issued by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on 7 January and 15 March this year which ‘make some fundamental changes in the DAS Interconnection Regulations and have a direct bearing upon the controversies in these cases.’

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava listed the matter for 27 April for hearing the parties further in the light of the amendments introduced in the DAS Interconnect Regulations.

    The tribunal said that “In the meanwhile, the respondents may apprise the respective petitioners separately and also through their counsel Mr Nittin Bhatia regarding the rates and the terms and conditions including the respective rights and obligations of the parties under clause 10 of Schedule IV of the notification dated 15 March 2016, that the respondents might have executed with any other LCO operating in that area.”

    The Tribunal also made it clear that if any of the LCOs being represented through these petitions were willing to execute the agreement with the respondents on those terms, they were free to do so.