ITV

Tag: Aftab Alam

  • 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.

  • TDSAT rejects 3 LCOs’ application for STB deposit refund from Indusind

    TDSAT rejects 3 LCOs’ application for STB deposit refund from Indusind

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has rejected applications by three local cable operators (LCOs) seeking refund from IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd of Rs 1100 per Set Top Box (STB). Of the Rs 1100, Rs 500 for each STB is allegedly the amount towards security deposit paid by respondents and another sum of Rs 600 per STB allegedly charged from the respondents from its customers as activation fee.

     

    While noting that evidence in this regard would be examined in the three main cases by IndusInd against R S Cable, OM Cable, and Vipin Sehrawat and others, the clause of the agreement relating to security deposit shows it was at the discretion of Indusind. 

     

    Though the security deposit is refundable, as regards installation and activation charges, there is no clause for the refund of same. The only receipt produced by the applicants mentions a payment of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs. 

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “There is nothing to indicate that this payment was for security deposit. On the other hand, the statement annexed by the petitioner (Indusind) in its reply to the applications indicates this to be otherwise.”

     

    Rejecting the LCOs’ applications, the Tribunal said, “In view of the contrary stands taken by the parties on facts, we feel that evidences will be required in this regard. At this stage, in the absence of sufficient material to support the claim of the applicants/respondents, we do not find that a sufficient case is made for direction to refund any amount. We, however, leave this question open for determination at the time of the trial.”

     

    Indusind is a multi system operator (MSO) with a pan India presence, the respondents are LCOs. The petitioner came to the Tribunal challenging the migration of applicants/respondents to the network of another MSO. 

     

    In its interim appeal, it had asked for a direction to the LCOs to jointly return the STBs provided by it.

     

    The Tribunal, by an order dated 5 November 2015, directed the LCOs to return all the STBs to Indusind. However, the question whether Indusind might be liable to make any payment for the returned STBs to the LCOs or to deposit an equal amount before the Tribunal, was left expressly open. The return of the STBs was to be overseen by an Advocate Commissioner that was appointed for the purpose. The advocate commissioner said the LCOs had returned 2290 STBs.

     

    It was the case of the LCOs that they had paid a sum of Rs 1100 per STB and for the STBs that have been returned by them, these charges must be refunded by Indusind. 

     

    The reply to the application filed by Indusind says it only received installation charges of Rs 500 per STB from the LCOs on which it has even paid the service tax and the same is not refundable. In support of its pleadings, the MSO has annexed a statement titled “STB installation charge account” with its reply. 

     

    The LCOs have not provided any material to substantiate their claim except for a receipt of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs in case of Bunny Cable (respondent no. 1 in one of the three petitions). Indusind said the receipt of Rs 1,00,000 in regard of Bunny Cable is also towards installation charges and already accounted for in the statement annexed by it.

     

    The LCOs argued that the agreement provides for a security deposit of Rs 500 per STB and the MSO would not have supplied the STBs without taking this. 

     

    According to clause 3.4 of the agreement between the MSO and the LCOs in all these petitions, the LCO was to collect rent, installment and security deposit in respect of the hardware/STBs from the subscribers and hand over the same to the petitioner. 

     

    In terms of the “Schedule A II. Standard Terms and Conditions,” the LCOs were required to deposit at the discretion of the MSO, an interest free and refundable security deposit of Rs 500 per STB.

  • TDSAT rejects 3 LCOs’ application for STB deposit refund from Indusind

    TDSAT rejects 3 LCOs’ application for STB deposit refund from Indusind

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has rejected applications by three local cable operators (LCOs) seeking refund from IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd of Rs 1100 per Set Top Box (STB). Of the Rs 1100, Rs 500 for each STB is allegedly the amount towards security deposit paid by respondents and another sum of Rs 600 per STB allegedly charged from the respondents from its customers as activation fee.

     

    While noting that evidence in this regard would be examined in the three main cases by IndusInd against R S Cable, OM Cable, and Vipin Sehrawat and others, the clause of the agreement relating to security deposit shows it was at the discretion of Indusind. 

     

    Though the security deposit is refundable, as regards installation and activation charges, there is no clause for the refund of same. The only receipt produced by the applicants mentions a payment of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs. 

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “There is nothing to indicate that this payment was for security deposit. On the other hand, the statement annexed by the petitioner (Indusind) in its reply to the applications indicates this to be otherwise.”

     

    Rejecting the LCOs’ applications, the Tribunal said, “In view of the contrary stands taken by the parties on facts, we feel that evidences will be required in this regard. At this stage, in the absence of sufficient material to support the claim of the applicants/respondents, we do not find that a sufficient case is made for direction to refund any amount. We, however, leave this question open for determination at the time of the trial.”

     

    Indusind is a multi system operator (MSO) with a pan India presence, the respondents are LCOs. The petitioner came to the Tribunal challenging the migration of applicants/respondents to the network of another MSO. 

     

    In its interim appeal, it had asked for a direction to the LCOs to jointly return the STBs provided by it.

     

    The Tribunal, by an order dated 5 November 2015, directed the LCOs to return all the STBs to Indusind. However, the question whether Indusind might be liable to make any payment for the returned STBs to the LCOs or to deposit an equal amount before the Tribunal, was left expressly open. The return of the STBs was to be overseen by an Advocate Commissioner that was appointed for the purpose. The advocate commissioner said the LCOs had returned 2290 STBs.

     

    It was the case of the LCOs that they had paid a sum of Rs 1100 per STB and for the STBs that have been returned by them, these charges must be refunded by Indusind. 

     

    The reply to the application filed by Indusind says it only received installation charges of Rs 500 per STB from the LCOs on which it has even paid the service tax and the same is not refundable. In support of its pleadings, the MSO has annexed a statement titled “STB installation charge account” with its reply. 

     

    The LCOs have not provided any material to substantiate their claim except for a receipt of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs in case of Bunny Cable (respondent no. 1 in one of the three petitions). Indusind said the receipt of Rs 1,00,000 in regard of Bunny Cable is also towards installation charges and already accounted for in the statement annexed by it.

     

    The LCOs argued that the agreement provides for a security deposit of Rs 500 per STB and the MSO would not have supplied the STBs without taking this. 

     

    According to clause 3.4 of the agreement between the MSO and the LCOs in all these petitions, the LCO was to collect rent, installment and security deposit in respect of the hardware/STBs from the subscribers and hand over the same to the petitioner. 

     

    In terms of the “Schedule A II. Standard Terms and Conditions,” the LCOs were required to deposit at the discretion of the MSO, an interest free and refundable security deposit of Rs 500 per STB.

  • Siticable & Fastway resolve dispute; yet to sign interconnect agreement

    Siticable & Fastway resolve dispute; yet to sign interconnect agreement

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has asked Siticable Services Pvt Ltd not to re-transmit the signals of any broadcasters in the area of Panchkula unless a proper interconnect agreement with Fastway Transmission comes into existence.

     

    Earlier, TDSAT chairtman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava were told that both sides had arrived at an agreement.

     

    TDSAT disposed of the petition after it was told that all that remained was the formal execution of the interconnect agreement.

     

    The petition had been filed by Fastway against Siticable and Star India.

  • Siticable & Fastway resolve dispute; yet to sign interconnect agreement

    Siticable & Fastway resolve dispute; yet to sign interconnect agreement

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has asked Siticable Services Pvt Ltd not to re-transmit the signals of any broadcasters in the area of Panchkula unless a proper interconnect agreement with Fastway Transmission comes into existence.

     

    Earlier, TDSAT chairtman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava were told that both sides had arrived at an agreement.

     

    TDSAT disposed of the petition after it was told that all that remained was the formal execution of the interconnect agreement.

     

    The petition had been filed by Fastway against Siticable and Star India.

  • TDSAT asks Star India to audit Rudrapur Cable systems to enable ICA

    TDSAT asks Star India to audit Rudrapur Cable systems to enable ICA

    NEW DELHI: Star India has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to audit the systems of Rudrapur Cable TV Network to enable an interconnect agreement (ICA).

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava listed the matter for further hearing on 29 January by which time they said the audit must be over.

     

    Earlier, Rudrapur Counsel Vineet Bhagat, on the basis of instructions received by him, said his client wanted to execute an interconnect agreement with Star India on its RIO terms.

     

    However, Star India told the Tribunal that it wanted the system audited before entering into an agreement on that basis.

     

  • TDSAT asks Star India to audit Rudrapur Cable systems to enable ICA

    TDSAT asks Star India to audit Rudrapur Cable systems to enable ICA

    NEW DELHI: Star India has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to audit the systems of Rudrapur Cable TV Network to enable an interconnect agreement (ICA).

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava listed the matter for further hearing on 29 January by which time they said the audit must be over.

     

    Earlier, Rudrapur Counsel Vineet Bhagat, on the basis of instructions received by him, said his client wanted to execute an interconnect agreement with Star India on its RIO terms.

     

    However, Star India told the Tribunal that it wanted the system audited before entering into an agreement on that basis.

     

  • TDSAT to hear Sun’s petition alleging Asianet’s changing placement of important channels

    TDSAT to hear Sun’s petition alleging Asianet’s changing placement of important channels

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) will hear a petition by Sun Distribution Services Pvt Ltd on27 January alleging that the placement of important channels has been changed by Asianet Satellite Communication.

     

    The petition was initially filed alleging that Asianet had discontinued the distribution of Sun’s signals on its network without any notice and in violation of the regulations.

    However when the matter came up for hearing before TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava, Sun counsel Gopal Jain accepted that the channels had been resumed after filing of the petition.

    However, he said the channels’ placement had been changed to the great disadvantage of the petitioner and cited some examples. Asianet Counsel Shirin Khajuria said there was no subsisting placement agreement between the two sides. She also stated that the displacements, if any, of the channels are made in accordance with the regulations.

     

    The Tribunal also asked Asianet counsel to take proper instructions and, if so advised, to file a brief reply on the issue of displacements of channels.

  • TDSAT to hear Sun’s petition alleging Asianet’s changing placement of important channels

    TDSAT to hear Sun’s petition alleging Asianet’s changing placement of important channels

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) will hear a petition by Sun Distribution Services Pvt Ltd on27 January alleging that the placement of important channels has been changed by Asianet Satellite Communication.

     

    The petition was initially filed alleging that Asianet had discontinued the distribution of Sun’s signals on its network without any notice and in violation of the regulations.

    However when the matter came up for hearing before TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava, Sun counsel Gopal Jain accepted that the channels had been resumed after filing of the petition.

    However, he said the channels’ placement had been changed to the great disadvantage of the petitioner and cited some examples. Asianet Counsel Shirin Khajuria said there was no subsisting placement agreement between the two sides. She also stated that the displacements, if any, of the channels are made in accordance with the regulations.

     

    The Tribunal also asked Asianet counsel to take proper instructions and, if so advised, to file a brief reply on the issue of displacements of channels.

  • Taj TV to supply signals to Grant Investrade after signing ICA

    Taj TV to supply signals to Grant Investrade after signing ICA

    NEW DELHI: Grant Investrade, which operates the headend-in-the-sky (HITS) brand NXT Digital, and Taj Television have arrived at an agreement.

     

    Taj Television will provide its signals to Grant Investrade as soon as an inter-connect agreement is signed.

     

    Stating this, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) noted however that the agreement will be “without prejudice to Grant’s rights and contentions with regard to those clauses.”

     

    Listing the case for 13 January, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava made this observation after counsel Salman Khurshid on behalf of Grant Investrade said his client had some reservations on two or three clauses of the agreement.

     

    Both counsels namely Pratibha Singh on behalf of Taj and Khurshid said there was broad agreement for supply of Zee channels as also for Turner channels and this would be signed this week.

     

    Singh accepted that the agreement would be signed “without prejudice to Grant’s rights and contentions with regard to those clauses.”