Tag: B B Srivastava

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.

January 26, 2016
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.

January 24, 2016
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.

January 24, 2016
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.

January 24, 2016
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.

January 24, 2016
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.

January 23, 2016
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.

January 23, 2016
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.

January 23, 2016
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.

January 23, 2016
TDSAT directs BECIL to re-audit Digicable’s headend

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has asked the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd (BECIL) to make a further audit of Digicable Network India’s system on whether there is a foolproof and tamper proof mechanism to truly and faithfully record the number of subscribers receiving the signals at Ahmedabad in case the feed of signals is taken from the Delhi headend to that city.

The Tribunal, which had earlier asked BECIL to conduct an audit of Digicable Network and received its report, gave this direction on a petition by Digicable seeking transmission of digital addressable system signals of IndiaCast Distribution to Ahmedabad.

Listing the matter for 29 January, TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava asked BECIL to submit the report within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The Tribunal was not satisfied with the contentions of Digicable counsel Diggaj Pathak, who had relied upon the paragraph in the earlier BECIL petition making note of the unique package ID, which he said would sufficiently record the number of subscribers in Ahmedabad even though the feed may be taken from the Delhi headend.

BECIL may also indicate the position in regard to the Gospel CAS, which finds mention in its earlier report, the Tribunal said.

Pathak submitted that in case IndiaCast was not willing to execute an agreement on negotiated terms, it must still provide the signals of its channels to Digicable on its RIO terms in as much as the latter had expressed its willingness to execute the agreement based on the respondent’s RIO.

IndiaCast objected to giving its signals to Digicable for retransmission in Gujarat on a number of grounds, one of which relate to the alleged lacuna in Digicable’s technical system.

The Tribunal decided to presently leave aside other objections raised by IndiaCast (including non-payment of its dues) and only deal with the issue of the technical lacuna in the petitioner’s system.

The Tribunal noted that the earlier audit by BECIL was on a petition by Digicable last year against a notice of disconnection issued by IndiaCast, and the Tribunal had asked BECIL to examine Digicable headend. The report was given on 21 August. Even as the BECIL’s report was received before the Tribunal, it had been represented that the parties had resolved their disputes bilaterally and the petition filed by the Digicable was withdrawn.

Digicable executed an interconnect agreement with IndiaCast on its behalf and on behalf of a number of its JV companies for retransmission of IndiaCast signals in different DAS areas in the country. The licence fee under this agreement is payable on CPS basis and does not cover Gujarat.

Pathak submitted that Digicable will take the feed of the signals from its headend located in Delhi to Ahmedabad for retransmission there.

IndiaCast counsel Kunal Tandon said the earlier report had shown that there is no proper bifurcation of subscribers or set-top-boxes (STBs) on the basis of locations of the petitioner’s CAS in Delhi.

January 21, 2016