ITV

Category: TDSAT

  • TDSAT directs 65 Rajasthan LCOs to make payment to Hathway

    TDSAT directs 65 Rajasthan LCOs to make payment to Hathway

    NEW DELHI: Accepting the request on behalf of 65 Rajasthan cable operators about their dues to Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd. Jaipur, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has said that these payments are ad hoc in nature and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either side and will abide by the final decision in the petition.

     

    The petition had been filed by Rajasthan Cable Operators Foundation, Jaipur, on behalf of the local cable operators (LCOs).

     

    Following a previous order and as an ad hoc arrangement, Hathway counsel Jayant K  Mehta gave a computation with regard to the monthly subscription fee payable for the months of August and September 2015 by each of the 65 LCOs being represented in this petition.

     

    Foundation counsel G S Oberoi said the LCOs will “certainly” make payment on the basis of the computation given on behalf of Hathway. 

     

    However, he submitted that the payment of the dues for the aforesaid two months may be split up into two instalments. He said half of the dues for the two months will be paid by the LCOs along with the payment for the month of December and the balance along with the payment for the month January 2016. 

     

    The Tribunal listed the matter on 22 December before the Assistant Registrar for getting the pleadings completed, framing of issues and taking evidences.

  • TDSAT asks MSM not to disconnect signals to Manthan if dues paid

    TDSAT asks MSM not to disconnect signals to Manthan if dues paid

     
    NEW DELHI: MSM Media Distribution Pvt. Ltd has been directed not to disconnect the signals to Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd if the latter makes payments under a formula worked out by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).
                                   
    TDSAT asked Manthan to make the payment to the respondent for the outstanding dues as under: 
    (a) Rs 1.5 crore by 25 December
    (b) Rs 1.5 crore – 15 days thereafter
    (c) The balance amount after adjusting TDS amount by 31 January, 2016. 
     
    TDSAT members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava in their judgment said in terms of the regulations, three months period after expiry of the existing agreement is permitted to enable the parties to negotiate and arrive at a fresh agreement. During this period, the terms of the old agreement are applicable but when the fresh agreement is signed, the same have to abide by the terms of the new agreement. 
     
    Since the parties have not been able to come to any agreement even after three months, the Tribunal felt that Manthan must clear the outstanding amount of subscription dues as per old agreement if it wishes to continue with the signals of MSM. 
     
    With regard to the credit period, the Tribunal noted that not only is the agreement not in subsistence but dues have also accumulated over a period of time. 
     
    Further, since the subscription fee and placement charges are governed by two separate agreements, which are not even subsisting as on date, the Tribunal said Manthan cannot insist on adjustment of placement fees against the dues of license fee. 
     
     
    It had been submitted during the hearing that in terms of the notices issued under regulation 6(i) of DAS Regulations 2012, Manthan has to pay MSM for subscription fees as under: 
    MSM O/s for Kolkata as per notice dated 29.10.2015 Rs 4,04,53,536/- 
    MSM O/s for Ranchi as per notice dated 5.11.2015 Rs 55,60,609/- 
    TV Today O/s for Ranchi as per notice dated 5.11.2015 Rs 1,12,395/-
    TV Today O/s for Kolkata as per invoice dated 1.10.2015 Rs 8,20,680/-
     
    Manthan counsel Navin Chawla submitted that under the understanding between the parties, his client was getting a credit period of two months for payment of subscription dues. He further submitted that under the invoices issued by Manthan, MSM owes a sum of Rs 4.73 crore as on October 2015 towards placement charges of the channels of the respondent. After netting off the placement charges, Chawla had claimed that it was MSM who had to pay an amount of Rs 1.58 crore to Manthan. 
     
    Chawla referred to minutes of meeting between the parties held on 11 – 13 August in which MSM admitted placement charges of Rs 2.97 crore till July, 2015. However, MSM counsel Ramji Srinivasan submitted that there is no netting off clause in the subscription agreement for adjusting subscription fees against placement charges and in any case the agreement for placement had expired on 31 March, 2015 and therefore, Manthan cannot claim any placement charges in the absence of any such agreement. He further submitted that the minutes of meeting of August was part of a negotiation process and cannot be relied upon in the absence of a concluded agreement. 
     
    The Tribunal noted that the subscription agreement between the parties expired on 31 March, 2015 by efflux of time and no fresh agreement has been signed till date. 
  • Sun given option to disconnect signals of Hyderabad MSO on non-payment of dues

    Sun given option to disconnect signals of Hyderabad MSO on non-payment of dues

    NEW DELHI: Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd has been given the option of disconnecting the signals to multisystem operator Lifestyle Communication of Hyderabad for not clearing its dues.

     

    The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal said that it was satisfied that the MSO did not deserve any more indulgence as it had failed to make the payments as directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore recalled its restraint direction to Sun Distribution issued on 6 May and 4 September when time was given to the MSO against the petitioner. 

     

    However, the Tribunal said Sun Distribution must restore the supply of its signal to the MSO as soon as it receives the payment of the last installment in terms of the order passed on 6 May and also on clearance of the dues of licence fees for the current months.   

     

    The order came on a recovery petition filed by Sun Distribution for realization of its dues of licence fee. 

     

    Since a substantial amount of dues was admitted, the Tribunal had said on 6 May that the MSO will make an on-account payment to Sun of the sum of Rs One crore towards arrears for the analogue GHMC area for the period April 2014 to March 2015. “The payment shall be made in six equal monthly installments and shall also carry interest at the rate of 14 percent per annum. The interest will be computed from the dates, the payments became due till the dates of actual payment. In addition, the respondent shall also pay to the petitioner, monthly subscription fee for the aforesaid area at the rate of Rs 7 lakh per month”. 

     

    The Tribunal had been informed that the last installment payable by 31 October has fallen in default.   Sun Counsel Abhishek Malhotra said the MSO had also defaulted in making payment of the monthly licence fees and the licence fees for the months of October and November had not been paid.

  • HITS to be treated at par with pan-India MSOs; TDSAT advises TRAI to frame consolidated Broadcasting Code

    HITS to be treated at par with pan-India MSOs; TDSAT advises TRAI to frame consolidated Broadcasting Code

    NEW DELHI: In a judgment expected to have far reaching consequences on the Indian broadcasting industry, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today said that headend-in-the-sky (HITS) players should be treated on the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs) for commercial purposes.
     

    In a judgment on a petition filed by the Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) against Media Pro and others, the Tribunal said its judgment would come into effect from 31 March, 2016 by which time the relevant reference interconnect offers will be revised wherever necessary.

    The Tribunal said, “It is difficult to see a HITS operator as different from a pan-India MSO and in our considered view a HITS operator, in regard to the commercial terms for an interconnect arrangement has to be taken at par with a pan-India MSO and must, therefore, receive the same treatment.”

    Expectedly, the judgment will also help Hinduja Group’s HITS platform NXT Digital, which entered into the fray earlier this year.

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said both Star and Taj, as well as the other broadcasters who have joined the proceedings as intervenors are directed to issue fresh RIOs in compliance with the Interconnect Regulations, as explained in the judgment within one month from the date this order becomes operational and effective. It will be then open to NSTPL to execute fresh interconnect agreements with Star and Taj, and with any other broadcasters on the basis of their respective RIOs or on negotiated terms within the limits.

     
    Star and Taj will have to execute fresh interconnect agreements with the petitioner within two weeks from the date of issuance of their fresh RIOs. The agreement with Star would relate back to 30 October, 2015 and with Taj to 30 June, 2015. The issuance of the fresh RIOs by the broadcasters will also give right to other distributors of channels with whom the broadcasters may be in interconnect agreement to have their agreements modified in terms of clause 13.2A.7.
     

    NSTPL had executed an RIO based agreement with Media Pro. At that time, it did not complain before the Tribunal that it was being forced into the RIO based agreement even though it had ample opportunity to do so as the Media Pro application was pending before the Tribunal. Later on, after Media Pro ceased to be an agent of the broadcasters, NSTPL, even after filing the present petition, signed RIO based agreements both with Star and Taj. The agreement with Star was for the period upto 30 July, 2015 and the two agreements with Taj were upto 31 March, 2015.
     

    NSTPL must, therefore, be held bound by those agreements till the periods of those agreements and further, three months beyond that in terms of clause 8 of the Interconnect agreement. After those dates (29 October in case of Star and 30 June in case of Taj) the arrangement will be governed by the fresh agreements.

    The Tribunal said the non-discrimination obligation, which TRAI acknowledges as the pivot of those regulations, appears inconsistent with a regime where parties are allowed full latitude to mutually negotiate their agreements and also not disclose the commercial terms of the agreement to other market participants.
     

    There is the obligation to frame a meaningful RIO in which all bouquet and a la carte rates are specified, and there is also some room for mutual negotiation (even on rates) within certain specified parameters. This will achieve the objective of introducing a transparent non-discriminatory regime whereby distributors can obtain access to content, while still retaining some latitude to mutually negotiate the terms and conditions of access. It will also make the nexus between a la carte and bouquet rates, which the regulator thought fit to introduce, applicable to all mutually negotiated agreements. Negotiations must be within the parameters to those mandatory.

     
    At the same time, TDSAT said it was conscious that the present judgment may unsettle the way in which various parties in the broadcasting sector have entered into existing agreements. “We are further conscious that while the TRAI has taken a position broadly in line with our conclusions in this case, that has not always been the case. As the Amicus Curiae and the counsel for the Petitioner have pointed out, the positions taken by TRAI in the past have not always been fully consistent. In particular, we note the observation of TRAI in Consultation Paper No.15 / 2008 that in view of the confidentiality restrictions, the automatic implementation of non-discrimination clause in Interconnect Regulation is practically difficult,” it said.
     

    Thus, as far back as 2008, TRAI was aware that the non-discrimination clause – which, in these proceedings, it has sought to place on a very high pedestal – was effectively inoperative. And yet, matters in the broadcasting sector have been allowed to lie where they are by TRAI.
     

    TDSAT said it had on past occasions as well, made similar suggestions with the hope of nudging the Regulator to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the Regulations. At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia.
     

    This was the reason for suspending the operation of this judgment till 31 March, 2016. The judgment shall take effect on 1 April, 2016. “While we are aware that this is not a common procedure, we are of the view that it is appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since the effect of this judgment may be to unsettle a number of existing agreements and necessitate re-negotiation,” the Tribunal said.
     

    In the meanwhile it will be open to TRAI to undertake a comprehensive restructuring of the Regulations, which would hopefully clarify many of the issues that arise in these proceedings. “We make it clear that this Tribunal is issuing no such direction to TRAI. The delayed operation of the judgment is only to afford an opportunity to TRAI to consider the matter and act in the intervening period, if appropriate,” it further added.
     

    As a greater part of the country would come under the DAS regime with effect from 1 January, 2016 the Tribunal said it would be advisable that TRAI should try to frame a consolidated Broadcasting Code instead of the large number of Regulations dealing with different aspects of the service and each having undergone numerous amendments. In order to make a serious effort in that direction, TRAI would be required to get hold of all the negotiated interconnect agreements between the broadcasters and the distributors of channels, which the broadcasters are in any event obliged to submit to TRAI. The Regulator may even feel the need to take a re-look at the tariff orders framed by it.

     
    Needless to add that in case TRAI issues any fresh Regulations before 1 April, 2016, the petitioner and the broadcasters would be obliged to execute agreements on that basis. In case, however, no fresh Regulations are issued by TRAI, this judgment and order will come into effect from the aforesaid date and the parties would be obliged to follow the directions give above.

    Suspension of this judgment is in the larger interest of the broadcasting sector. But this leaves open the question of the petitioner’s liability to pay licence fees to the broadcasters Star and Taj for their signals received by it during the pendency of the petitions before the Tribunal and further until execution of fresh agreements in terms of this judgment or in terms of fresh Regulations, if any, framed by TRAI. And since it will not be fair that the broadcasters should continue to supply signals to the petitioner without any payment for the next several months, some interim arrangement under which the petitioner should make payment of licence fees to the two broadcasters until after execution of fresh agreements accounts are finally reconciled. For this purpose, the petition against the broadcasters was de-tagged from this judgment and kept pending.
     

    Star has already filed an application in Petition No. 314 (C) of 2015 claiming the dues of licence fees from the petitioner. Petition No. 526 (C) of 2015 is directed to be tagged with Petition No. 314 (C) of 2015. In these two petitions, the Tribunal proposes to determine the Petitioner’s liability to pay the license fees to Star and Taj on an ad hoc basis and as an interim measure until the execution of the agreements with the two broadcasters, and when the accounts of the two sides may be reconciled to determine any final liability of the Petitioner or Respondents to make any further payments.
     

    It also made clear that all future deals between broadcasters and MSO/HITS players will be bound by the RIO agreements.

     
    While the case was initially filed against Media Pro in mid-2014, NSTPL had subsequently in December last year filed another petition against Star India and Taj TV.
     

    Since the issues in both petitions were similar and any judgment would affect the broadcasting sector as a whole, TDSAT had on 30 July this year issued a public notice asking all stakeholders to present their case on the issues involved.
     

    In an earlier case in 2013 between NSTPL and Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. TDSAT had on 12 September, 2013 directed Media Pro to provide signals of its TV channels to NSTPL.
     

    Later, NSTPL moved the Tribunal against Media Pro in which Taj Television Ltd and Star India Private Limited were brought in. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was also a party in the two petitions of 2014.

     
    The first petition 10 July, 2014, NSTPL raised some questions regarding RIO and wanted the Tribunal to declare Clause 3.2 of The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation 2004, as amended from time to time should mandate that all distributors be offered the same rate per subscriber per month which is the rate specified in the broadcaster’s RIO, unless the conditions of Clause 3.6 of Interconnection Regulation are fulfilled.

     
    It also wanted declaration in terms of Clause 3.6 of Interconnect Regulation to the effect that any discounted volume related scheme must be disclosed in a transparent manner, so as to enable the similarly placed distributors to avail of the same.
     

    It demanded that Media Pro be directed to disclose the volume related schemes at which it offers TV channel signals to distributors that are similarly placed with NSTPL and permit NSTPL to avail of such schemes.
     

    The second petition on 12 December, 2014 was against Taj and TRAI, which impugned the disconnection measures that had been initiated by Taj against NSTPL on account of alleged defaults like non-payment of certain amounts of subscription fees.

  • TDSAT appoints advocate commissioner to examine subscription claims of Chirala MSO

    TDSAT appoints advocate commissioner to examine subscription claims of Chirala MSO

    NEW DELHI: An Advocate Commissioner has been appointed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to carry out a sample survey of the SLRs of Chirala Cable Network, which is seeking signals of Taj TV, Eenadu TV, Maa TV and Sun Distribution Services.

     

    The Tribunal said Advocate Commissioner Tushar Singh would go on a date duly intimated to all concerned to Chirala town and its rural areas where the multi system operator (MSO) claims it has subscribers. All the parties may nominate their representative to accompany the Advocate Commissioner in course of the survey. 

     

    Singh will go to all panchayat areas named in the SLR submitted by the petitioner. In each area he will visit at least 10 houses named in the SLR and 10 houses outside the SLR to verify whether any one of them are the petitioner’s subscribers or they are taking their signals from some other MSO/LCO. 

     

    Listing the matter for 4 January, the Advocate Commissioner was asked to submit a report within three weeks and he will be paid, apart from actual expenses, an honorarium of Rs 30,000 per day.

     

    The order came on a petition by the MSO wanting the signals of the four respondents against whom it has filed these four petitions. The petitioner is operating in Chirala town and adjoining rural areas. The controversy between the parties is mainly in regard to the petitioner’s SLR in rural areas, adjoining Chirala town.

     

    The Tribunal noted that Chirala town falls under Phase III of the DAS regime and the rural areas adjoining it come under Phase IV. In Chirala town, the petitioner is getting Sun’s signals through A.C.T Digital. 

     

    During the proceedings, the petitioner filed two or three SLRs, which on verification by Sun are said to have been found incorrect. According to Sun, the petitioner does not have any subscriber in the rural areas around Chirala town and it is making an attempt to penetrate the rural areas on the basis of incorrect SLRs “which would make it very difficult for the broadcasters to raise their invoices.”

     

    The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner had once again filed a fat affidavit giving its latest SLRs according to which it has 3219 subscribers of which 1138 are in Chirala town and the rest in the rural areas.

     

    The ascertainment that the correct SLRs that should form the basis for determining the licence fee payable by the petitioner to the broadcasters is an issue of facts, which may be determined on the basis of evidences led by the parties.

  • TDSAT permits LCO to seek TV signals directly from distributor

    TDSAT permits LCO to seek TV signals directly from distributor

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has said that SRE Digital Cable Communications is entitled in law to ask Sun TV for supply of signals directly despite the fact that it has been receiving these signals from another multi system operator (MSO).

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said however that this is subject to the operator satisfying the conditions mandated in the Regulations.

     

    Listing the matter for 21 December, the Tribunal said, “It will be open to Sun Distribution Services Pvt Ltd to make an inspection of the LCO’s system and to be satisfied that it is compliant with the regulatory norms.”

     

    On the next date, the LCO’s counsel Sujeet Kumar Mishra will also produce the invoices of A.C.T. Digital with the materials showing that payments are duly made against those invoices.

          

    The Tribunal also noted that the area in which the petitioner is operating is to come under the DAS regime in the third phase from 1 January, 2016. “It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the petitioner would have a digital head-end in place. As a matter of fact, Mr. Mishra states that such is the position and the petitioner is capable of retransmitting any signals, including those received from SUN in digital mode.”

     

    However, it said that Sun could not be denied the request to examine the systems.

     

    In pursuance of the order passed on 29 October, Sun counsel Abhishek Malhotra filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner is receiving Sun’s signals from A.C.T. Digital. 

     

    Mishra admitted to the Tribunal that the petitioner had been receiving Sun’s signals from A.C.T. Digital from the month of November 2015. “Evidently, the earlier statements made on behalf of the petitioner were not correct,” the Tribunal noted.

  • TDSAT issues bailable arrest warrants against two directors of Sahara India TV Network

    TDSAT issues bailable arrest warrants against two directors of Sahara India TV Network

    New Delhi: In a power rarely exercised by it, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has issued a bailable warrant of arrest against Sahara India TV Network Directors Govind Tiwari and Devendra Kumar Srivastava in a case of non-payment of dues to multi-system operator Delhi Distribution Company.  

     

    Listing the matter for 22 December, Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said: “From the earlier orders, it appears that the Directors of the company are willfully flouting the directions of this Tribunal. The Tribunal is, therefore, left with no option but to secure their presence through coercive measures.” 

     

    It was also noted that neither the details of moveable and immoveable properties of the company were filed nor any payment being made towards the discharge of the decree. 

     

    Sahara India counsel Pankaj Agarwal who was present said he had been instructed that he would be handed over the cheque to be handed over to the MSO but was later told no cheque was being sent.

     

    The TDSAT office was directed to issue bailable warrants of arrest on the addresses being furnished by MSO Counsel Vibhav Srivastava to ensure their personal appearance on the next date fixed in the matter.

  • Sun asked to sign provisional agreement and commence signals to MSO

    Sun asked to sign provisional agreement and commence signals to MSO

    New Delhi: Sun Network has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to enter into a provisional interconnect agreement with multi system operator Balu Cable Network and commence supply of signals.

     

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh felt that the order was proper and appropriate considering much time has already lapsed.

     

    The Tribunal said: “We note that this petition was filed on 28 May 2015 and it is lingering on, on some pretext or the other. The request on behalf of the respondent for making physical verification of the petitioner’s SLR cannot be disallowed.”  

     

    Listing the matter for 14 December, the Tribunal said Sun Network may make a physical verification of the petitioner’s SLR and submit its report on completion of the verification.

     

    Thereafter, the Tribunal will pass further orders, the bench said.

  • TDSAT asks Durgapur MSO to permit head-end inspection by Star India

    TDSAT asks Durgapur MSO to permit head-end inspection by Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) directed the multi-system operator (MSO) Akash Tori Infocom Services to allow Star India to examine its headends in Durgapur on 18 and 19 November.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava listed the matter for 27 November.

     

    The order was given after the Tribunal was informed by Akash Tori counsel Radhika Gupta that the MSO had not yet received some set top boxes (STBs) it had ordered.

     

    When the matter had first come up on 19 October, the Tribunal had noted that Akash Tori was a ‘fledgling multi-system operator’ and ‘Star India cannot have any objection to give its signals on RIO terms to it,’ permitting Star to examine the headend of the MSO.

     

    However, Star India counsel Arjun Natarajan told the Tribunal today that the MSO had not given a convenient date as instructed by the Tribunal and it was only when the broadcaster wrote to the MSO that it had referred to the STBs, which were yet to arrive.

     

    Thereupon, Justice Alam queried as to why an MSO should file a petition for signals when it was not ready to receive them. The MSO had filed a petition seeking Star’s signals in digital mode on RIO terms.

  • TDSAT sends team to Punjab to ascertain alleged links between Fastway & Apna Cable

    TDSAT sends team to Punjab to ascertain alleged links between Fastway & Apna Cable

    NEW DELHI: A team of three Advocate Commissioners has been appointed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to go to Talwandi Sabo in Punjab to examine allegations as to whether Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd is using an entity by the name of Apna Cable to transmit signals in the area of the Malwa Cable Operator Sangarsh Committee.

     

    The allegation by the 12 cable operators, who are members of the Committee, is that Apna Cable is transmitting signals in analogue mode and is operating in digital mode.

     

    The team will also examine whether Apna Cable has its own head-end and cable network or if it is using the “leased lines” taken from Fastway or is otherwise using the network, systems or equipment of Fastway. It will also look into whether Apna Cable is engaged in laying down any cables in that area and being helped by Fastway in doing so.

     

    The commissioners will also find out all the channels that Apna Cable is giving to its subscribers and which of those channels are being received from Fastway and which channels it is getting directly from different broadcasters on the basis of agreements with them. 

     

    The commissioners will also find out by engaging with subscribers of both Apna Cable and the petitioner LCOs the amounts of monthly subscription fee they are charging from their respective subscribers and whether Apna Cable has issued pamphlets or it is making any public announcements that the subscribers should take the Fastway channels from Apna Cable at much lower rates than those realised by the petitioner LCOs.

     

    The Advocate Commissioners – Nasir Husain, Vibhav Srivastava and Ravi S S Chauhan – have been asked to go to the area by the end of this week and the matter has been listed for 23 November.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava also directed that Apna Cable be issued notice and added to the list of respondents.

     

    The Tribunal noted that there appeared to be “some seriously disputed facts on the ground.”

     

    In pursuance of the previous order passed on 14 October, Deenadayalan had been appointed as the Advocate Commission but could not proceed beyond Bhatinda becase of serious social disturbance and was advised to come back. 

     

    Fastway counsel Navin Chawla denied the allegations about Apna Cable and said there was no link between his client and the LCO.

     

    The petitioners alleged that Apna Cable is only a front name and the entire work of cable-laying is being done at the instance of and using the resources of Fastway. It is alleged that Apna Cables is receiving signals from Fastway and re-transmitting those signals in the petitioners’ area of operation in analogue mode. It is further alleged that Apna Cable is issuing pamphlets and making public announcements that the subscribers should take their signals from Apna Cable as it would give them Fastway signals at a much cheaper rate. According to the petitioners, Apna Cable is an entity simply set up by Fastway as a ploy to drive them out of business.

     

    According to Chawla, Apna Cable had its own independent head-end and it has interconnect agreements with a few broadcasters whose signals it might be transmitting on the basis of the agreements with them. But during arguments, he said a little later that Fastway has given leased lines to Apna Cable and it might also be giving some local free-to-air channels like the live telecast from the Golden Temple to Apna Cable. The Tribunal noted that “admittedly Fastway is not giving any of its local free-to-air channels, like the live telecast from the Golden Temple to any of the LCOs represented in this petition.”

     

    The Commissioners will first try to find out if the supply of signals to the 12 LCOs (whose description is given in the affidavit filed on 14.09.2015) was disrupted for several days in the middle of October 2015. For this purpose, the team of Commissioners may examine the networks of the petitioner LCOs as also the local system of the respondent. They may also interview and engage with the subscribers of the 12 LCOs to find out whether or not they were receiving signals through the petitioner’s network during the past month or even now.

     

    Each member of the Advocate Commissioners’ team will be paid, apart from actual expenses, honorarium at the rate of Rs 20,000 per day. The payment will be made by the two sides in the ratio of 75 per cent by the respondent and 25 per cent by the petitioners. 

     

    The Tribunal rejected objections by Chawla to the respective shares and insists that the payment must be made in equal shares.