ITV

Tag: Aftab Alam

  • 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.

  • Petitions not maintainable if no interconnect agreement is produced: TDSAT

    Petitions not maintainable if no interconnect agreement is produced: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has made it clear in six different petitions relating to recovery of dues in the absence of an interconnect agreement may not be maintainable.

    In five cases filed by IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd against Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Udhistar, Sai Cable Network – II, Vinesh Tyagi, and Anita Sehrawat, the Tribunal noted that an interconnect agreement was executed on 22 August last but the petitions were for recovery of dues prior to that.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “From the agreement it does not appear that it covered any period prior to the date of its execution.” 

    The Tribunal added that it was “not at all clear as to how and on what basis the respondent was supplying signals in the absence of any agreement in writing.”

    Indusind counsel Kanupriya Gupta was given time to find out if there was any agreement prior to the one annexed with the petition.

    The matter was listed for 2 March but it was made clear that in case there is no agreement prior to the agreement dated 22 August, 2015, this petition for recovery of the alleged dues prior to that date may not be maintainable.

    In another case by IndusInd against Vajeshwar Gundla for recovery of alleged dues of subscription fee and return of set top boxes, the Tribunal was informed that all the 144 STBs had been returned.

    However, the Tribunal said the petition had been filed without any interconnect agreement between the two sides. 

    Vajeshwar Gundla counsel Tushar Singh said there was no averment that the relationship between the two sides was on the basis of any agreement in writing.

    However, IndusInd counsel Vandana Jaisingh said there was no mention about the interconnect agreement as it was not traceable and wanted more time. 

    While adjourning the matter for 10 March, the Tribunal said, “It is made clear that in case no interconnect agreement is found to be in existence between the two sides, that will raise a question regarding the very maintainability of this petition.”

  • Petitions not maintainable if no interconnect agreement is produced: TDSAT

    Petitions not maintainable if no interconnect agreement is produced: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has made it clear in six different petitions relating to recovery of dues in the absence of an interconnect agreement may not be maintainable.

    In five cases filed by IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd against Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Udhistar, Sai Cable Network – II, Vinesh Tyagi, and Anita Sehrawat, the Tribunal noted that an interconnect agreement was executed on 22 August last but the petitions were for recovery of dues prior to that.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “From the agreement it does not appear that it covered any period prior to the date of its execution.” 

    The Tribunal added that it was “not at all clear as to how and on what basis the respondent was supplying signals in the absence of any agreement in writing.”

    Indusind counsel Kanupriya Gupta was given time to find out if there was any agreement prior to the one annexed with the petition.

    The matter was listed for 2 March but it was made clear that in case there is no agreement prior to the agreement dated 22 August, 2015, this petition for recovery of the alleged dues prior to that date may not be maintainable.

    In another case by IndusInd against Vajeshwar Gundla for recovery of alleged dues of subscription fee and return of set top boxes, the Tribunal was informed that all the 144 STBs had been returned.

    However, the Tribunal said the petition had been filed without any interconnect agreement between the two sides. 

    Vajeshwar Gundla counsel Tushar Singh said there was no averment that the relationship between the two sides was on the basis of any agreement in writing.

    However, IndusInd counsel Vandana Jaisingh said there was no mention about the interconnect agreement as it was not traceable and wanted more time. 

    While adjourning the matter for 10 March, the Tribunal said, “It is made clear that in case no interconnect agreement is found to be in existence between the two sides, that will raise a question regarding the very maintainability of this petition.”

  • Prejudice caused to broadcaster by TV channel’s placement has to be established: TDSAT

    Prejudice caused to broadcaster by TV channel’s placement has to be established: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has rejected the demand by Sun Distribution Services for placement of three Malayalam channels on numbers of their choice on Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.

    Sun wanted restoration of its three channels – Surya, Kiran TV and Surya Music – to their original placements at 107, 144 and 146 respectively. It was said that after the hiatus of a few days when these were off air due to technical glitches (according to Asianet) the three channels are now being shown at LCN 648, 664 and 668. 

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said no case is made out for any direction to the respondent to restore the LCN placements of the petitioner’s three channels by way of an interim order. 

    While accepting the terms in the interconnect agreement that the subscriber operator would ensure that no subscribed channel would be disadvantaged or otherwise treated less favourably with respect to the competing channels on a genre basis, the Tribunal said no case had been made out in support of this.  

    Whether or not the change in placement has caused any disadvantage or amounts to inferior treatment with respect to competing channels on a genre basis is a pure question of fact, which can be gone into only after evidences are led by the two sides, the Tribunal said while posting the matter before the Registrar’s court on 17 March for getting the pleadings completed, framing of issues and taking evidences.

    Sun had initially filed the petition agitating the grievance that Asianet had discontinued the supply of its signals on its network without any notice and in violation of the Regulations. The petition was filed on 14 January but when it came up before the Tribunal the next day, it was stated that the broadcast of channels was resumed on the respondent’s network but their placements were changed causing much prejudice to the petitioner.  

    Noticing this grievance of the broadcaster, the petition was adjourned to enable the counsel for Asianet to get proper instructions in the matter. 

    Thereafter Sun filed an affidavit on 28 January and its reply was filed by Asianet the next day.

    Sun Counsel Abhishek Malhotra strongly contended that the Asianet action in changing the placements of the channels was in violation of the Regulations and the terms of the agreements.

    Asianet counsel Navin Chawla submitted that there was no violation of any Regulations or the terms of agreement in shifting the positions of the three channels and the respondent was fully entitled to place the channels as and where it suited its interests.

    The two sides have been in interconnect relationship for the past several years. In the past, the agreements between the two sides were based on mutual negotiations and the petitioner’s three channels were consistently placed at LCN 107 (Surya), 144 (Kiran TV) and 146 (Surya Music). The parties executed a fresh agreement on 31 December, 2015 to take effect from 1 January, 2016 covering Kerala that came under the Digital Addressable System (DAS) regime in Phase-III. 

    The present agreement, unlike the previous agreements, is based on the Sun’S RIO. It is well known that a distributor accepts the RIO based agreement only as a measure of last resort.

    Malhotra submitted that the three channels belong to “GEC (Malayalam)”, “Movies (Malayalam)” and “Music (Malayalam)” genres respectively and Asianet was legally obliged to put them in the genres to which each of them belonged. He further submitted that at LCN 107, 144 and 146, the three channels were rightly placed in their respective genres but at LCN 648, 664 and 668, those channels are placed among channels, which do not belong to their respective genres. 

    However, Chawla said the three channels, which were earlier in Malayalam Package-I were now in Malayalam Package-II among all the Malayalam language channels and the only grouse of Sun was that they had been assigned distant numbers.  

    The Tribunal, which saw the earlier and present groupings found that in the present grouping, the number of GEC channels in its neighbourhood had become relatively fewer. Chawla sought to justify the change by stating that it was open to the Asianet to make language based groupings rather than content based groupings and all the three channels of Sun continued to be in the Malayalam group.

    Malhotra drew attention to Regulation 5[14(A)], [14(B)] and [14(C)] of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) (First Amendment) Regulations 2012.  The Regulations said, “The multi system operator will place the channels of a broadcaster in the genre declared by such broadcaster and no broadcaster shall demand from the multi-system operator to assign a particular number of its channels.”

    Thus, the Tribunal noted that while prima facie Sun was right, the fact remained that there was nothing to show that Sun made the declaration regarding the genres of the three channels to the distributor at the time of execution of the agreement.

  • Prejudice caused to broadcaster by TV channel’s placement has to be established: TDSAT

    Prejudice caused to broadcaster by TV channel’s placement has to be established: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has rejected the demand by Sun Distribution Services for placement of three Malayalam channels on numbers of their choice on Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.

    Sun wanted restoration of its three channels – Surya, Kiran TV and Surya Music – to their original placements at 107, 144 and 146 respectively. It was said that after the hiatus of a few days when these were off air due to technical glitches (according to Asianet) the three channels are now being shown at LCN 648, 664 and 668. 

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said no case is made out for any direction to the respondent to restore the LCN placements of the petitioner’s three channels by way of an interim order. 

    While accepting the terms in the interconnect agreement that the subscriber operator would ensure that no subscribed channel would be disadvantaged or otherwise treated less favourably with respect to the competing channels on a genre basis, the Tribunal said no case had been made out in support of this.  

    Whether or not the change in placement has caused any disadvantage or amounts to inferior treatment with respect to competing channels on a genre basis is a pure question of fact, which can be gone into only after evidences are led by the two sides, the Tribunal said while posting the matter before the Registrar’s court on 17 March for getting the pleadings completed, framing of issues and taking evidences.

    Sun had initially filed the petition agitating the grievance that Asianet had discontinued the supply of its signals on its network without any notice and in violation of the Regulations. The petition was filed on 14 January but when it came up before the Tribunal the next day, it was stated that the broadcast of channels was resumed on the respondent’s network but their placements were changed causing much prejudice to the petitioner.  

    Noticing this grievance of the broadcaster, the petition was adjourned to enable the counsel for Asianet to get proper instructions in the matter. 

    Thereafter Sun filed an affidavit on 28 January and its reply was filed by Asianet the next day.

    Sun Counsel Abhishek Malhotra strongly contended that the Asianet action in changing the placements of the channels was in violation of the Regulations and the terms of the agreements.

    Asianet counsel Navin Chawla submitted that there was no violation of any Regulations or the terms of agreement in shifting the positions of the three channels and the respondent was fully entitled to place the channels as and where it suited its interests.

    The two sides have been in interconnect relationship for the past several years. In the past, the agreements between the two sides were based on mutual negotiations and the petitioner’s three channels were consistently placed at LCN 107 (Surya), 144 (Kiran TV) and 146 (Surya Music). The parties executed a fresh agreement on 31 December, 2015 to take effect from 1 January, 2016 covering Kerala that came under the Digital Addressable System (DAS) regime in Phase-III. 

    The present agreement, unlike the previous agreements, is based on the Sun’S RIO. It is well known that a distributor accepts the RIO based agreement only as a measure of last resort.

    Malhotra submitted that the three channels belong to “GEC (Malayalam)”, “Movies (Malayalam)” and “Music (Malayalam)” genres respectively and Asianet was legally obliged to put them in the genres to which each of them belonged. He further submitted that at LCN 107, 144 and 146, the three channels were rightly placed in their respective genres but at LCN 648, 664 and 668, those channels are placed among channels, which do not belong to their respective genres. 

    However, Chawla said the three channels, which were earlier in Malayalam Package-I were now in Malayalam Package-II among all the Malayalam language channels and the only grouse of Sun was that they had been assigned distant numbers.  

    The Tribunal, which saw the earlier and present groupings found that in the present grouping, the number of GEC channels in its neighbourhood had become relatively fewer. Chawla sought to justify the change by stating that it was open to the Asianet to make language based groupings rather than content based groupings and all the three channels of Sun continued to be in the Malayalam group.

    Malhotra drew attention to Regulation 5[14(A)], [14(B)] and [14(C)] of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) (First Amendment) Regulations 2012.  The Regulations said, “The multi system operator will place the channels of a broadcaster in the genre declared by such broadcaster and no broadcaster shall demand from the multi-system operator to assign a particular number of its channels.”

    Thus, the Tribunal noted that while prima facie Sun was right, the fact remained that there was nothing to show that Sun made the declaration regarding the genres of the three channels to the distributor at the time of execution of the agreement.

  • TDSAT fines Siti Cable for disobeying orders & contempt

    TDSAT fines Siti Cable for disobeying orders & contempt

    NEW DELHI: Siti Cable has been fined Rs 2 lakh and asked to tender an unqualified apology to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for disobeying its order as well as for attempting to cover up its actions.

    The directive came on a contempt petition in the matter relating to UCN Cable Network against Sambuddha Cable Network and Quality Cable Network.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava noted that the parties were in the process of settlement “as is generally the practice in the broadcasting sector.”

    Disposing the contempt petition, the main matter was listed for 29 February.

    Earlier, Siti Cable counsel Arun Kathpalia “in great fairness stated that notwithstanding the settlement with the petitioner, Siti Cable remains answerable to the Tribunal.”

    Kathpalia accepted what was asked of Siti Cable and submitted that an apology on affidavit and the payment of cost will be made within two weeks.

    The Tribunal said the amount of cost will be paid to TDSAT Employees Welfare Society.

  • TDSAT fines Siti Cable for disobeying orders & contempt

    TDSAT fines Siti Cable for disobeying orders & contempt

    NEW DELHI: Siti Cable has been fined Rs 2 lakh and asked to tender an unqualified apology to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for disobeying its order as well as for attempting to cover up its actions.

    The directive came on a contempt petition in the matter relating to UCN Cable Network against Sambuddha Cable Network and Quality Cable Network.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava noted that the parties were in the process of settlement “as is generally the practice in the broadcasting sector.”

    Disposing the contempt petition, the main matter was listed for 29 February.

    Earlier, Siti Cable counsel Arun Kathpalia “in great fairness stated that notwithstanding the settlement with the petitioner, Siti Cable remains answerable to the Tribunal.”

    Kathpalia accepted what was asked of Siti Cable and submitted that an apology on affidavit and the payment of cost will be made within two weeks.

    The Tribunal said the amount of cost will be paid to TDSAT Employees Welfare Society.

  • TDSAT gives Maharashtra’s World Vision final chance to present case against Indiacast

    TDSAT gives Maharashtra’s World Vision final chance to present case against Indiacast

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has given World Vision Cable Network, Maharashtra, one final chance to present its case against Indiacast UTV Media Distribution on 10 February.

     

    Noting that no one had appeared in the hearing, TDSAT chairperson Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “If no one appears on the next date, the petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution.”

     

    The Tribunal noted that it appeared that after filing the petition, World Vision had lost interest in the matter but listed the matter for next month “as an indulgence.”

     

    In the order of 14 December, 2015, the Tribunal had noted that World Vision’s area of operation was coming under the Digital Addressable System (DAS) regime from 1 January, 2016 and it was observed that any final order on the petition may be passed only after the Tribunal was satisfied that World Vision was in a position to continue with its operations under the DAS regime with effect from the new year.  

     

    As an interim measure, Indiacast UTV Media was directed to restore the supply of its signals to World Vision on Rs 2 lakh on-account payment. 

     

    However, the Tribunal was informed by Indiacast counsel Shashank Shekhar that signals had not been restored as no payment had been made. 

     

    Shekhar also said no documents had been furnished to his client for making fresh arrangements for supply of signals in digital mode on a down-graded subscriber base.

  • TDSAT gives Maharashtra’s World Vision final chance to present case against Indiacast

    TDSAT gives Maharashtra’s World Vision final chance to present case against Indiacast

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has given World Vision Cable Network, Maharashtra, one final chance to present its case against Indiacast UTV Media Distribution on 10 February.

     

    Noting that no one had appeared in the hearing, TDSAT chairperson Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “If no one appears on the next date, the petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution.”

     

    The Tribunal noted that it appeared that after filing the petition, World Vision had lost interest in the matter but listed the matter for next month “as an indulgence.”

     

    In the order of 14 December, 2015, the Tribunal had noted that World Vision’s area of operation was coming under the Digital Addressable System (DAS) regime from 1 January, 2016 and it was observed that any final order on the petition may be passed only after the Tribunal was satisfied that World Vision was in a position to continue with its operations under the DAS regime with effect from the new year.  

     

    As an interim measure, Indiacast UTV Media was directed to restore the supply of its signals to World Vision on Rs 2 lakh on-account payment. 

     

    However, the Tribunal was informed by Indiacast counsel Shashank Shekhar that signals had not been restored as no payment had been made. 

     

    Shekhar also said no documents had been furnished to his client for making fresh arrangements for supply of signals in digital mode on a down-graded subscriber base.

  • TDSAT asks LCOs on signal source post complaints against Tejpur Cable

    TDSAT asks LCOs on signal source post complaints against Tejpur Cable

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has asked Mahabhairab Cable Network and other cable networks to file an affidavit by 27 January disclosing the source of their signals after 31 December, 2015.

     

    Listing the matter for 29 January, TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava took note of the statement by the LCO counsel Vivek Sarin that his clients were not receiving the signals from Tejpur Cable Networks and others despite the statement by the latter that the signals were being transmitted.

     

    On the contrary, Sarin said none of the petitioners were receiving any signals from Tejpur Cable post 31 December, 2015 as the latter had removed the nodes through which the signals were being supplied to the LCOs. 

     

    Earlier, the Tribunal was told that all the LCOs had paid their dues to Tejpur Cable for the month of November 2015 (even though payments were made beyond the date as directed by the Tribunal).

     

    As far as the dues of subscription fee for December 2015 were concerned, Sarin said only petitioner no.23 was in default. Sarin stated that petitioner nos. 10, 24 and 25 have “merged” and continued their relationship with Tejpur Cable. He further stated that except petitioner no. 23, all other petitioners had paid the subscription fees for December 2015 to Tejpur Cable by 12 January, 2016. 

     

    Tejpur Cable counsel Sharath Sampath said four among the petitioners – nos.2, 10, 23 and 25 – were in default stated in payment of subscription fees for December 2015. 

     

    But notwithstanding this, Sampath said Tejpur Cable was continuing the supply of its signals to all the petitioners including the four defaulters.