ITV

Tag: B B Srivastava

  • Taj TV directed by TDSAT to enter into interim agreement with Asianet subject to final judgment

    Taj TV directed by TDSAT to enter into interim agreement with Asianet subject to final judgment

    New Delhi, 21 March: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed Taj TV to enter into an interconnect agreement with Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd for Telengana and Andhra Pradesh as an interim measure and without prejudice to Asianet’s rights.
     
    The directive came after Asianet counsel Shirin Khajuria said that her client was ready for such an agreement on Taj TV’s RIO terms.
     
    Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said “there cannot be any objection to such a request”.
     
    The Tribunal said that Asianet’s representative will visit the Bangalore office of Taj TV and the latter was asked to ensure that the agreement is executed on the same day and following the execution of the agreement the signals are supplied without any undue delay.  
     
    The interim arrangement under which the RIO agreement is directed to be executed between the parties shall abide by the final result of the case.
     
    Taj TV was directed to file the reply and the matter was listed for further hearing on 30 March.
  • Star India free to disconnect Good News Media if it fails to adhere to payment schedule; TDSAT

    Star India free to disconnect Good News Media if it fails to adhere to payment schedule; TDSAT

    New Delhi: Star India has decided to reactivate its signals to Good Media News Pvt Ltd and also execute an interconnect agreement by the end of this month provided there is no breach in the payment schedule agreed before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    Demand drafts of Rs.48 lakhs, as the first installment of dues amounting to Rs 2,84,91,264 were handed over to Star India Counsel Rajasekhar Rao.

    However, Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in case of any breach of the payment schedule, it will be open to Star to disconnect the supply of the signals to the petitioner and to intimate the Tribunal in that regard.

    On the insistence of Star India, one Mukesh Malhothra who is a promoter of Good Media News, also became personally liable for the default and agreed in an affidavit that he would stand as guarantor and undertake to be personally liable for any default in the payment schedule or breach in the same by the Petitioner as far as the payment of acknowledged outstanding dues are concerned.

    The petition had been filed by Good Media News against disconnection of signals against Media Network & Distribution India Ltd.

  • Star India free to disconnect Good News Media if it fails to adhere to payment schedule; TDSAT

    Star India free to disconnect Good News Media if it fails to adhere to payment schedule; TDSAT

    New Delhi: Star India has decided to reactivate its signals to Good Media News Pvt Ltd and also execute an interconnect agreement by the end of this month provided there is no breach in the payment schedule agreed before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    Demand drafts of Rs.48 lakhs, as the first installment of dues amounting to Rs 2,84,91,264 were handed over to Star India Counsel Rajasekhar Rao.

    However, Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in case of any breach of the payment schedule, it will be open to Star to disconnect the supply of the signals to the petitioner and to intimate the Tribunal in that regard.

    On the insistence of Star India, one Mukesh Malhothra who is a promoter of Good Media News, also became personally liable for the default and agreed in an affidavit that he would stand as guarantor and undertake to be personally liable for any default in the payment schedule or breach in the same by the Petitioner as far as the payment of acknowledged outstanding dues are concerned.

    The petition had been filed by Good Media News against disconnection of signals against Media Network & Distribution India Ltd.

  • Taj TV not to give effect to disconnection notices if GTPL Hathway makes payment as per schedule

    Taj TV not to give effect to disconnection notices if GTPL Hathway makes payment as per schedule

    New Delhi, 12 March: Taj Television has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal not to give effect to its disconnection notice if GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd makes payment according to schedule agreed before it.

    While directing the matter to be listed before the Registrar on 7 April, Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava worked out a formula for payment of Rs 63 crore in five instalments.

    The Tribunal made clear that the last payment of Rs.11 crore in the formula agree upon was to come from GTPL Hathway’s JVs and this would be subject to reconciliation of accounts between the parties which should be completed by 20 March. It said the balance dues after reconciliation of accounts which may be Rs.11 crores or a little more or less must be cleared by 31 March. 

    GTPL Hathway was directed to facilitate the payment of the last installment by its JVs to Taj TV and to ensure that the payments are finally made by 31 March.

    Two other respondents in turn are directed to pay the amount of carriage fee of Rs.22 crores to the petitioner on or before 15April.

    The monthly subscription for the months of February and March 2016 for DAS networks [other than DL GTPL CABLE NET, VAJI Communications and GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd and March, 2016 for Non-DAS will be cleared by 25 April.

    But the Tribunal said: “Needless to say that the payments in terms of the above order will be on-account and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.”

    The two petitions were filed against disconnection notices dated 13 February and 14 February. The disconnection notices are based on grounds of non-payment of monthly subscription fee and non-execution of the fresh agreements.

    According to counsel for the respondent, its cumulative dues against the petitioner (both in DAS and non-DAS) areas amount to Rs.66 crores as on 12 February.

    But counsel for GTPL Hathway strongly argued that the petitioner was entitled to carriage fee from two respondents and the dues of its carriage fee against these two respondents amounted to around Rs.25 crores. The petitioner further argued that the agreement was based on incremental tariff that was recommended by TRAI but which was later on set aside by the Tribunal and on that score also, the petitioner is entitled to adjustment of Rs.11 crores against the dues claimed by the petitioner.

    Counsel for the respondent submitted that as stipulated in the interconnect agreement between the parties, the dues of subscription fee are payable independent of any adjustments, including any adjustment against carriage fee which was the subject matter of a separate agreement between the petitioner and the other two respondents.  In any event, the agreement relating to carriage fee has expired.

    In course of submissions however, it transpired that the dues of carriage fee claimed by the petitioner may come down to Rs.22 crores and similarly the subscription dues of Taj TV against the petitioner may come down to Rs.63 crores.

    The Tribunal thereupon asked GTPL Hathway to pay to Taj TV a sum of Rs.63 crores in five instalments, of which the last would be on 31 March.

     

  • Taj TV not to give effect to disconnection notices if GTPL Hathway makes payment as per schedule

    Taj TV not to give effect to disconnection notices if GTPL Hathway makes payment as per schedule

    New Delhi, 12 March: Taj Television has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal not to give effect to its disconnection notice if GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd makes payment according to schedule agreed before it.

    While directing the matter to be listed before the Registrar on 7 April, Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava worked out a formula for payment of Rs 63 crore in five instalments.

    The Tribunal made clear that the last payment of Rs.11 crore in the formula agree upon was to come from GTPL Hathway’s JVs and this would be subject to reconciliation of accounts between the parties which should be completed by 20 March. It said the balance dues after reconciliation of accounts which may be Rs.11 crores or a little more or less must be cleared by 31 March. 

    GTPL Hathway was directed to facilitate the payment of the last installment by its JVs to Taj TV and to ensure that the payments are finally made by 31 March.

    Two other respondents in turn are directed to pay the amount of carriage fee of Rs.22 crores to the petitioner on or before 15April.

    The monthly subscription for the months of February and March 2016 for DAS networks [other than DL GTPL CABLE NET, VAJI Communications and GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd and March, 2016 for Non-DAS will be cleared by 25 April.

    But the Tribunal said: “Needless to say that the payments in terms of the above order will be on-account and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.”

    The two petitions were filed against disconnection notices dated 13 February and 14 February. The disconnection notices are based on grounds of non-payment of monthly subscription fee and non-execution of the fresh agreements.

    According to counsel for the respondent, its cumulative dues against the petitioner (both in DAS and non-DAS) areas amount to Rs.66 crores as on 12 February.

    But counsel for GTPL Hathway strongly argued that the petitioner was entitled to carriage fee from two respondents and the dues of its carriage fee against these two respondents amounted to around Rs.25 crores. The petitioner further argued that the agreement was based on incremental tariff that was recommended by TRAI but which was later on set aside by the Tribunal and on that score also, the petitioner is entitled to adjustment of Rs.11 crores against the dues claimed by the petitioner.

    Counsel for the respondent submitted that as stipulated in the interconnect agreement between the parties, the dues of subscription fee are payable independent of any adjustments, including any adjustment against carriage fee which was the subject matter of a separate agreement between the petitioner and the other two respondents.  In any event, the agreement relating to carriage fee has expired.

    In course of submissions however, it transpired that the dues of carriage fee claimed by the petitioner may come down to Rs.22 crores and similarly the subscription dues of Taj TV against the petitioner may come down to Rs.63 crores.

    The Tribunal thereupon asked GTPL Hathway to pay to Taj TV a sum of Rs.63 crores in five instalments, of which the last would be on 31 March.

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • TDSAT directs Karnataka MSO to pay monthly subscription pending dispute with Star India

    TDSAT directs Karnataka MSO to pay monthly subscription pending dispute with Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Karnataka based multi system operator (MSO) V4 Media to make payment of the monthly subscription fee at the rate of the last invoice raised by Star India until settlement of their dispute.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava listed the matter for 2 March and asked V4 Media counsel V Subrahmaniam to file the position about ownership pattern of the MSO.

    Earlier, the parties had been negotiating for entering into a fresh agreement. According to Subrahmaniam, the negotiation was not making any headway because Star India insisted on a 10 per cent increase in the subscriber base over the last agreement.

    V4 Media, however was unable to accept the demand and according to Subrahmaniam, there was no actual increase in the MSO’s subscriber base.

    Subrahmaniam also informed there was a split in the partnership firm V4 Media and after the split, the two sides also split up the earlier subscriber base.

    She submitted that she would file the deed under which the partnership was reconstituted and the current SLR of the V4 Media following the reconstitution at Star India’s Mangalore office. On receipt of this, Star would then inform the Tribunal about its stand in the matter.