Tag: Aftab Alam

  • TDSAT regrets TV distributors interconnect pacts without any written document

    TDSAT regrets TV distributors interconnect pacts without any written document

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • 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.

  • TDSAT: Four broadcasters asked to work out commercial deals with MSO

    TDSAT: Four broadcasters asked to work out commercial deals with MSO

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal today asked four broadcasters to work out commercial terms with M.C. Transmissions towards working out fresh interconnect agreements.

    Chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava gave the direction to the broadcasters – Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd, Star India, Taj Television, and Indiacast UTV Media Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd – after accepting the supplementary report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd about the headend of MC Transmissions. Tbe Tribunal listed the matter for further hearing on 26 April.  

    Earlier, the broadcasters had said that despite a BECIL report pointing out some defects, the MSO had not corrected them.  Thereupon, the Tribunal had asked the broadcasters to constitute a joint team or agree upon one of them getting the inspection done by its technical team to examine the headend of M.C. Transmissions for any defects.

    However, the broadcasters reported that they were still not satisfied with the headends, following which BECIL was asked to conduct a fresh examination. “In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no other course but to ask the BECIL to make a supplementary report specific to its earlier findings. Since the supplementary report is on a very limited and specific issue, BECIL, as a special case, will waive its fee”, the Tribunal had said, giving BECIL one week for a its report which was presented today.

  • TDSAT: Four broadcasters asked to work out commercial deals with MSO

    TDSAT: Four broadcasters asked to work out commercial deals with MSO

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal today asked four broadcasters to work out commercial terms with M.C. Transmissions towards working out fresh interconnect agreements.

    Chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava gave the direction to the broadcasters – Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd, Star India, Taj Television, and Indiacast UTV Media Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd – after accepting the supplementary report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd about the headend of MC Transmissions. Tbe Tribunal listed the matter for further hearing on 26 April.  

    Earlier, the broadcasters had said that despite a BECIL report pointing out some defects, the MSO had not corrected them.  Thereupon, the Tribunal had asked the broadcasters to constitute a joint team or agree upon one of them getting the inspection done by its technical team to examine the headend of M.C. Transmissions for any defects.

    However, the broadcasters reported that they were still not satisfied with the headends, following which BECIL was asked to conduct a fresh examination. “In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no other course but to ask the BECIL to make a supplementary report specific to its earlier findings. Since the supplementary report is on a very limited and specific issue, BECIL, as a special case, will waive its fee”, the Tribunal had said, giving BECIL one week for a its report which was presented today.

  • TDSAT wants to know from MIB if it can adjudicate on denial of security clearances to new TV channels

    TDSAT wants to know from MIB if it can adjudicate on denial of security clearances to new TV channels

    New Delhi: With the Home ministry holding that the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of denial of security clearances, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has been asked to present its point of view.

    In a petition filed by Positiv TV Pvt. Ltd, chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said: “Before taking up the matter any further, we would like the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting also to make its stand clear. We accordingly direct Rajeev Sharma to file the reply on behalf of the ministry and listed the matter for 26 April.

    The Home ministry had filed its reply in which apart from contesting the petition on merits, it had raised objections to the maintainability of the petition before the tribunal taking the position that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of denial of security clearance to the petitioner.

    Earlier last year, the I and B ministry had said the Home ministry had in principle agreed that security clearances would not be needed for multi-system operators, but no such assurance was given with regard to those who had applied to start new television channels. 

  • TDSAT wants to know from MIB if it can adjudicate on denial of security clearances to new TV channels

    TDSAT wants to know from MIB if it can adjudicate on denial of security clearances to new TV channels

    New Delhi: With the Home ministry holding that the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of denial of security clearances, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has been asked to present its point of view.

    In a petition filed by Positiv TV Pvt. Ltd, chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said: “Before taking up the matter any further, we would like the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting also to make its stand clear. We accordingly direct Rajeev Sharma to file the reply on behalf of the ministry and listed the matter for 26 April.

    The Home ministry had filed its reply in which apart from contesting the petition on merits, it had raised objections to the maintainability of the petition before the tribunal taking the position that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of denial of security clearance to the petitioner.

    Earlier last year, the I and B ministry had said the Home ministry had in principle agreed that security clearances would not be needed for multi-system operators, but no such assurance was given with regard to those who had applied to start new television channels. 

  • TDSAT questions Dhru Lucky about relationship with GTPL Hathway, restrained  from transfering any property

    TDSAT questions Dhru Lucky about relationship with GTPL Hathway, restrained from transfering any property

    NEW DELHI: Dhru Lucky Enterprise Pvt Ltd (Dhru) was today asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to file an affidavit clarifying that it will not transfer its movable or immovable properties to anyone while its case against Star India is pending. Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava asked Dhru representative Sureshbhai Jagubhai Patel to file the affidavit by this evening clarifying the relationship between Dhru and GTPL Hathway. This was a precondition to dispense with his personal appearance.

    After he filed the affidavit as directed by today evening, the tribunal listed the matter to come up on 4 May and exempted him from personal appearance.  Star India was represented by Counsel Arjun Natarajan and Dhru by counsel Upender Thakur.

    Dhru had filed a petition in October 2014 against Star India seeking renewal of lapsed agreements. Subsequently, the tribunal stayed disconnection notices issued to Dhru  by its orders of 12 November and 18 November that year. Dhru thereafter received signals within the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    However, Star India alleged that Dhru had been resorting to rampant piracy. In an order of 16 April 2015, Dhru gave an undertaking that it would confine its operation within the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    Subsequently, Star filed a contempt application against Dhru, on the ground that, in breach of the undertaking contained in order dated 16 April 2015 and it went beyond the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    Dhru was directed on 19 May last year to clearly explain on affidavit the circumstances under which it was operating in Vapi, which is beyond the areas mentioned in th lapsed agreements.

    The tribunal on 28 May last was told by Dhru that it has assigned its network at Vapi and Daman to some other entity, and that, it no longer wishes to carry on with its MSO business.

    Following that order, it was directed to file an affidavit as to its assignment to some other entity. On 17 July, it filed another affidavit where Dhru mentioned that TDSAT had been apprised on 28 May about GTPL Hathway taking over Dhru’s cable business in its entirety. Star India in response pleaded that Dhru was indulging in piracy even on 23 July. Subsequently, GTPL-Hathway was impleaded in the petition as it appeared that Dhru had assigned its business to the distributor.

    TDSAT had on 1 March this year directed the Dhru’s MD Sureshbhai Jagubhai Patel to be present in person. He was also directed to produce the instrument under which Dhru was said to have transferred its LCO business to GTPL-Hathway. However, Patel did not turn up on the next date as it was submitted on behalf of Dhru that Patel was now president of District Panchayat, Daman, and had no control over the activities of Dhru.

    However, the Tribunal directed on 28 March that Patel should be present in person along-with documents on 18 April. Patel was present yesterday and today and the matter was heard on both days.
     

     

  • TDSAT questions Dhru Lucky about relationship with GTPL Hathway, restrained  from transfering any property

    TDSAT questions Dhru Lucky about relationship with GTPL Hathway, restrained from transfering any property

    NEW DELHI: Dhru Lucky Enterprise Pvt Ltd (Dhru) was today asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to file an affidavit clarifying that it will not transfer its movable or immovable properties to anyone while its case against Star India is pending. Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava asked Dhru representative Sureshbhai Jagubhai Patel to file the affidavit by this evening clarifying the relationship between Dhru and GTPL Hathway. This was a precondition to dispense with his personal appearance.

    After he filed the affidavit as directed by today evening, the tribunal listed the matter to come up on 4 May and exempted him from personal appearance.  Star India was represented by Counsel Arjun Natarajan and Dhru by counsel Upender Thakur.

    Dhru had filed a petition in October 2014 against Star India seeking renewal of lapsed agreements. Subsequently, the tribunal stayed disconnection notices issued to Dhru  by its orders of 12 November and 18 November that year. Dhru thereafter received signals within the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    However, Star India alleged that Dhru had been resorting to rampant piracy. In an order of 16 April 2015, Dhru gave an undertaking that it would confine its operation within the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    Subsequently, Star filed a contempt application against Dhru, on the ground that, in breach of the undertaking contained in order dated 16 April 2015 and it went beyond the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    Dhru was directed on 19 May last year to clearly explain on affidavit the circumstances under which it was operating in Vapi, which is beyond the areas mentioned in th lapsed agreements.

    The tribunal on 28 May last was told by Dhru that it has assigned its network at Vapi and Daman to some other entity, and that, it no longer wishes to carry on with its MSO business.

    Following that order, it was directed to file an affidavit as to its assignment to some other entity. On 17 July, it filed another affidavit where Dhru mentioned that TDSAT had been apprised on 28 May about GTPL Hathway taking over Dhru’s cable business in its entirety. Star India in response pleaded that Dhru was indulging in piracy even on 23 July. Subsequently, GTPL-Hathway was impleaded in the petition as it appeared that Dhru had assigned its business to the distributor.

    TDSAT had on 1 March this year directed the Dhru’s MD Sureshbhai Jagubhai Patel to be present in person. He was also directed to produce the instrument under which Dhru was said to have transferred its LCO business to GTPL-Hathway. However, Patel did not turn up on the next date as it was submitted on behalf of Dhru that Patel was now president of District Panchayat, Daman, and had no control over the activities of Dhru.

    However, the Tribunal directed on 28 March that Patel should be present in person along-with documents on 18 April. Patel was present yesterday and today and the matter was heard on both days.
     

     

  • BECIL directed by TDSAT to conduct fresh audit of Mumbai MSO in its petition against Sun Networks

    BECIL directed by TDSAT to conduct fresh audit of Mumbai MSO in its petition against Sun Networks

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed a fresh audit of the systems of JPR Channel, Mumbai, by the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd – BECIL – to check whether or not the system was compliant with the norms prescribed by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.

    BECIL had earlier done an audit and JPR Channel counsel J K Mehta claimed that the auditors’ report was “incomplete and only a draft report. Its findings are misconceived and whatever findings are recorded there can be fully explained.”

    Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. Chennai counsel Abhishek Malhotra said the auditor’s report had found very serious anomalies in the working of the petitioner’s system. Malhotra added that BECIL has already audited the petitioner’s system and found it non compliant with the statutory norms in a report of 26 February.

    Describing the natter as a serious dispute, Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said that BECI should conduct a thorough audit of the petitioner’s system and to submit its report. If desired, BECIL shall allow a representative of Sun to be present at the time of the audit.

    The Tribunal hoped and expected that BECIL would submit its report within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of its order. The audit fee will be initially paid by the the MSO but depending upon the report, it may be suitably apportioned or Sun itself may be held liable to pay the entire fee. The Tribunal listed the matter for 10 May.