ITV

Category: TDSAT

  • Govt rules out separate body to examine broadcasting complaints

    Govt rules out separate body to examine broadcasting complaints

    New Delhi: The Government today ruled out any separate body for going into complaints relating to broadcasting.

    Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore said this while replying to a question about the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    The Minister said TDSAT handled 1341 broadcasting cases between 2013 and 2015: 593 in 2015, 433 in 2014 and 315 in 2013.

    It dealt with thirty appeals relating to broadcasting during this period , which includes five in 2015, seven in 2014, and 18 in 2013.

    When the Government decided in 2004 to give charge of broadcasting to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the TDSAT, which handles cases arising out of TRAI orders, also began handling broadcasting cases.

    Even as the Prasar Bharati Act has a clear provision relating to establishing a Broadcasting Council to hear cases relating to that sector, the previous government had been contemplating a comprehensive law on legislation, which would provide for a Broadcasting Regulatory Authority of India, but did not take action after the private sector protested and both the Indian Broadcasting Foundation and the News Broadcasters Association set up their own regulatory bodies.  

  • Govt rules out separate body to examine broadcasting complaints

    Govt rules out separate body to examine broadcasting complaints

    New Delhi: The Government today ruled out any separate body for going into complaints relating to broadcasting.

    Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore said this while replying to a question about the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    The Minister said TDSAT handled 1341 broadcasting cases between 2013 and 2015: 593 in 2015, 433 in 2014 and 315 in 2013.

    It dealt with thirty appeals relating to broadcasting during this period , which includes five in 2015, seven in 2014, and 18 in 2013.

    When the Government decided in 2004 to give charge of broadcasting to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the TDSAT, which handles cases arising out of TRAI orders, also began handling broadcasting cases.

    Even as the Prasar Bharati Act has a clear provision relating to establishing a Broadcasting Council to hear cases relating to that sector, the previous government had been contemplating a comprehensive law on legislation, which would provide for a Broadcasting Regulatory Authority of India, but did not take action after the private sector protested and both the Indian Broadcasting Foundation and the News Broadcasters Association set up their own regulatory bodies.  

  • TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

    TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has said it may take appropriate action if Canara Star fails to furnish the required guarantee as sought by Star India in their long-pending dispute.

    Meanwhile, Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh listed the matter for 9 March. The Tribunal took note of the fact that Canara Star had given a payment schedule to Star India which was represented by Counsel Arjun Natarajan. Earlier last month, the Tribunal had given time in two different hearings to Canara Star to furnish the guarantee.   

    In the hearing in the  third week of December last year, the Tribunal had asked Canara Star to intimate Star India whether it admits the SMS reports submitted by the broadcaster for the period 2014 to January 2015.

    The common order by the Tribunal on three petitions including one by Star India against Canara Star claiming recovery dues of about Rs 3 crore pertaining to the MSO’s operations in DAS area of Bangalore said this was subject to the two parties failing to arrive at a final settlement.

    The directive had come after being informed by Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh that the parties had failed to resolve the dispute, though Star India counsel Kunal Tandon and Arjun Natarajan had told the Tribunal that no attempts had been made by Canara Star to resolve the dispute.

    The Tribunal had also asked Canara to produce its bank statements and materials to show payments made by it towards invoices raised by Star India based on Canara’s SMS reports.

    Canara, which has allegedly sold off its business to another MSO called All Digital, was to produce its deed of transfer of establishment to All Digital which was made a party in the petition filed by Star India.

    The other two petitions are by Canara Star challenging disconnection notices issues by Star India for analogue areas of Kumta and Bhatkal.

  • TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

    TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has said it may take appropriate action if Canara Star fails to furnish the required guarantee as sought by Star India in their long-pending dispute.

    Meanwhile, Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh listed the matter for 9 March. The Tribunal took note of the fact that Canara Star had given a payment schedule to Star India which was represented by Counsel Arjun Natarajan. Earlier last month, the Tribunal had given time in two different hearings to Canara Star to furnish the guarantee.   

    In the hearing in the  third week of December last year, the Tribunal had asked Canara Star to intimate Star India whether it admits the SMS reports submitted by the broadcaster for the period 2014 to January 2015.

    The common order by the Tribunal on three petitions including one by Star India against Canara Star claiming recovery dues of about Rs 3 crore pertaining to the MSO’s operations in DAS area of Bangalore said this was subject to the two parties failing to arrive at a final settlement.

    The directive had come after being informed by Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh that the parties had failed to resolve the dispute, though Star India counsel Kunal Tandon and Arjun Natarajan had told the Tribunal that no attempts had been made by Canara Star to resolve the dispute.

    The Tribunal had also asked Canara to produce its bank statements and materials to show payments made by it towards invoices raised by Star India based on Canara’s SMS reports.

    Canara, which has allegedly sold off its business to another MSO called All Digital, was to produce its deed of transfer of establishment to All Digital which was made a party in the petition filed by Star India.

    The other two petitions are by Canara Star challenging disconnection notices issues by Star India for analogue areas of Kumta and Bhatkal.

  • Petition against Den rejected as TDSAT notes petitioner is a joint venture of the MSO

    Petition against Den rejected as TDSAT notes petitioner is a joint venture of the MSO

    New Delhi: Dismissing it as not maintainable, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has noted that the petition that has been filed  by Fortune (Baroda) Network Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat, against Den Networks of which it is a joint venture.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava noted that Den Networks held the majority share of 51 per cent in the joint venture company.

    The petition had been filed by one Venus Patel who claimed to be the promoter director of the petitioner company.  There was no authorization by the Board of the petitioner company that has among its members also some nominee directors from Den. The petition was filed on the strength of an “authorization” signed by Venus Patel himself and one Kirti Bhai Patel who described themselves as promoter directors.

    The Tribunal noted that: “It is evident that there is a dispute in regard to the control of the petitioner company. Both the nature of the real dispute and the manner in which this petition is filed render it not maintainable before the Tribunal”.

    The Tribunal noted that earlier, one Jayesh Patel and some others filed a petition against Den and the present petitioner Fortune (Baroda) Network Pvt. Ltd and had been dismissed on 4 August last year. 

    The present petition was filed for directions to Den to enter into the fresh subscription agreement for the y ear 2014-15 on reasonable terms and conditions with the petitioner for the DAS phase; immediately re-connect the signals of the petitioner; charge the petitioner at the rate of Rs.46 per STB as an interim measure as directed by the Tribunal in order dated 31 October 2013 and some other reliefs.

  • Petition against Den rejected as TDSAT notes petitioner is a joint venture of the MSO

    Petition against Den rejected as TDSAT notes petitioner is a joint venture of the MSO

    New Delhi: Dismissing it as not maintainable, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has noted that the petition that has been filed  by Fortune (Baroda) Network Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat, against Den Networks of which it is a joint venture.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava noted that Den Networks held the majority share of 51 per cent in the joint venture company.

    The petition had been filed by one Venus Patel who claimed to be the promoter director of the petitioner company.  There was no authorization by the Board of the petitioner company that has among its members also some nominee directors from Den. The petition was filed on the strength of an “authorization” signed by Venus Patel himself and one Kirti Bhai Patel who described themselves as promoter directors.

    The Tribunal noted that: “It is evident that there is a dispute in regard to the control of the petitioner company. Both the nature of the real dispute and the manner in which this petition is filed render it not maintainable before the Tribunal”.

    The Tribunal noted that earlier, one Jayesh Patel and some others filed a petition against Den and the present petitioner Fortune (Baroda) Network Pvt. Ltd and had been dismissed on 4 August last year. 

    The present petition was filed for directions to Den to enter into the fresh subscription agreement for the y ear 2014-15 on reasonable terms and conditions with the petitioner for the DAS phase; immediately re-connect the signals of the petitioner; charge the petitioner at the rate of Rs.46 per STB as an interim measure as directed by the Tribunal in order dated 31 October 2013 and some other reliefs.

  • TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    New Delhi: Even as it dismissed a petition by Malwa Cable Operators seeking cable TV signals, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to ‘ponder over and address’ why there were no other multisystem operators in the area.

    It said the rejection of the petition by the Malwa Cable Operators Sangarsh Committee seeking signals from Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd was ‘not due to any lacuna in the law’.

    “It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the regulator to ponder over and to address,” chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment yesterday.

    They said: “On a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we come to the conclusion that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal”.

    Apart from relying on its own previous judgments, the Tribunal noted that the MSO had made clear that it was not supplying signals in analogue mode to any LCO in the State of Punjab and that it was willing to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs “as per its rate card on the basis of which alone it is supplying signals to other LCOs in the state.”

    The Tribunal also took note of an earlier allegation by the LCOs that Fastway had set up a dummy operator which was supplying signals in the area of operation of the petitioner LCOs in analogue mode and on much cheaper rates.

    Referring to arguments raised by lawyers from both sides on the must provide and non-discrimination clauses, the Tribunal said: “In our view, the two principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘on-discrimination’ as the basis of interconnection cannot operate separately but are inseparable. All that those principles mean is that a distributor cannot refuse to supply signals to a LCO and it must supply signals to the LCO seeking signals from it in the same mode and on the same terms and at the same rate at which it might be giving its signals to another LCO, comparable to the one seeking the signals. As long as the distributor does not supply signals to anyone except in DAS mode, the principle of “must provide” cannot be invoked to compel it to supply signals to anyone in analogue mode”.

    Counsel Abhishek Malhotra had during arguments referred to clause 3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 and submitted that the scheme of interconnection envisaged by the regulations was based on the twin principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘non-discrimination’. He submitted that as one of the principles of interconnection was ‘must provide’ the respondent was obliged to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs and they would be free to retransmit the signals in their area of operation in analogue mode as that area was yet to come under the DAS regime.

    The Tribunal noted that it was on a consideration of the recommendations made by TRAI that the Central Government issued the notification dated 11 November 2011 (later amended on 11 September 2014) introducing digitisation of cable TV systems in four phases over a period of four and a half years. “As noted above, the language of the notification is such that it would be unlawful to make transmission in analogue mode in any part of the country that has come under the DAS regime as per the schedule given in the notification. But it is not unlawful to make transmission through digital addressable system in any part of the country that is yet to come under the DAS regime”, the Tribunal said.

    Referring to arguments by Fastway counsel Naveen Chawla, the Tribunal said there was nothing to show that Fastway had committed any breach of any regulations or tariff orders framed by TRAI in either making the packages of channels or in fixing the rates of those packages. Moreover, the language of the notification issued under Section 4A of the CTN(R) Act and the relevant provisions of TRAI regulation is quite plain and to give them any other meaning on the plea of hardship caused to the LCOs would be doing violence to the plain language of the notification and the regulations.

    LCO counsel Vineet Bhagat had submitted that the scheme of digitisation was a phased scheme and it would be unreasonable and unjust to thrust upon the poor LCOs the digital addressable system of transmission even before the date of its enforcement under the Government notification.

  • TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    New Delhi: Even as it dismissed a petition by Malwa Cable Operators seeking cable TV signals, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to ‘ponder over and address’ why there were no other multisystem operators in the area.

    It said the rejection of the petition by the Malwa Cable Operators Sangarsh Committee seeking signals from Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd was ‘not due to any lacuna in the law’.

    “It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the regulator to ponder over and to address,” chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment yesterday.

    They said: “On a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we come to the conclusion that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal”.

    Apart from relying on its own previous judgments, the Tribunal noted that the MSO had made clear that it was not supplying signals in analogue mode to any LCO in the State of Punjab and that it was willing to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs “as per its rate card on the basis of which alone it is supplying signals to other LCOs in the state.”

    The Tribunal also took note of an earlier allegation by the LCOs that Fastway had set up a dummy operator which was supplying signals in the area of operation of the petitioner LCOs in analogue mode and on much cheaper rates.

    Referring to arguments raised by lawyers from both sides on the must provide and non-discrimination clauses, the Tribunal said: “In our view, the two principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘on-discrimination’ as the basis of interconnection cannot operate separately but are inseparable. All that those principles mean is that a distributor cannot refuse to supply signals to a LCO and it must supply signals to the LCO seeking signals from it in the same mode and on the same terms and at the same rate at which it might be giving its signals to another LCO, comparable to the one seeking the signals. As long as the distributor does not supply signals to anyone except in DAS mode, the principle of “must provide” cannot be invoked to compel it to supply signals to anyone in analogue mode”.

    Counsel Abhishek Malhotra had during arguments referred to clause 3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 and submitted that the scheme of interconnection envisaged by the regulations was based on the twin principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘non-discrimination’. He submitted that as one of the principles of interconnection was ‘must provide’ the respondent was obliged to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs and they would be free to retransmit the signals in their area of operation in analogue mode as that area was yet to come under the DAS regime.

    The Tribunal noted that it was on a consideration of the recommendations made by TRAI that the Central Government issued the notification dated 11 November 2011 (later amended on 11 September 2014) introducing digitisation of cable TV systems in four phases over a period of four and a half years. “As noted above, the language of the notification is such that it would be unlawful to make transmission in analogue mode in any part of the country that has come under the DAS regime as per the schedule given in the notification. But it is not unlawful to make transmission through digital addressable system in any part of the country that is yet to come under the DAS regime”, the Tribunal said.

    Referring to arguments by Fastway counsel Naveen Chawla, the Tribunal said there was nothing to show that Fastway had committed any breach of any regulations or tariff orders framed by TRAI in either making the packages of channels or in fixing the rates of those packages. Moreover, the language of the notification issued under Section 4A of the CTN(R) Act and the relevant provisions of TRAI regulation is quite plain and to give them any other meaning on the plea of hardship caused to the LCOs would be doing violence to the plain language of the notification and the regulations.

    LCO counsel Vineet Bhagat had submitted that the scheme of digitisation was a phased scheme and it would be unreasonable and unjust to thrust upon the poor LCOs the digital addressable system of transmission even before the date of its enforcement under the Government notification.

  • TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has agreed to hear a review application by the Mumbai multi system operator (MSO) Home Systems Pvt Ltd on the report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd (BECIL) relating to a case between the petitioner and Star India.

    However, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said that Home Systems must make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order. 

    The payment will be subject to the final result of the review application, the Tribunal said while fixing the date for 4 March. 

    In its order, the Tribunal noted that, “Through the device of this review application, a fresh hearing is practically sought to be made on Home System’s objection to the BECIL reports.”

    Though the Tribunal saw no reason to alter or modify its order of 21 January, it accepted the plea by Home Systems counsel J K Mehta to get more instructions in the matter. Mehta also stated that Hone Systems was willing to make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order “but it would not like to carry the stigma of the Tribunal’s observation that its operations were in contravention of statutory norms.” 

    While noting that it was not averse to hearing Mehta further “as we will not like any injustice to be caused by our order as the petitioner appears to be highly concerned about its credibility,” the Tribunal expressed the hope that BECIL counsel Rajiv Sharma would also be presented in the next hearing along with the author of the supplementary report of BECIL of 6 November last.

  • TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has agreed to hear a review application by the Mumbai multi system operator (MSO) Home Systems Pvt Ltd on the report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd (BECIL) relating to a case between the petitioner and Star India.

    However, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said that Home Systems must make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order. 

    The payment will be subject to the final result of the review application, the Tribunal said while fixing the date for 4 March. 

    In its order, the Tribunal noted that, “Through the device of this review application, a fresh hearing is practically sought to be made on Home System’s objection to the BECIL reports.”

    Though the Tribunal saw no reason to alter or modify its order of 21 January, it accepted the plea by Home Systems counsel J K Mehta to get more instructions in the matter. Mehta also stated that Hone Systems was willing to make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order “but it would not like to carry the stigma of the Tribunal’s observation that its operations were in contravention of statutory norms.” 

    While noting that it was not averse to hearing Mehta further “as we will not like any injustice to be caused by our order as the petitioner appears to be highly concerned about its credibility,” the Tribunal expressed the hope that BECIL counsel Rajiv Sharma would also be presented in the next hearing along with the author of the supplementary report of BECIL of 6 November last.