ITV

Tag: B B Srivastava

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Canara Star asked by TDSAT to pay Star India Rs 18.91 lakh subject to final outcome of dispute

    Canara Star asked by TDSAT to pay Star India Rs 18.91 lakh subject to final outcome of dispute

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed  Canara Star Communications Pvt Ltd Karnataka, to pay to Star India a sum of Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal up to 3 March 2016.

    Chairman  Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said “These payments are interim and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party.”

    Rejecting the plea by the multi-system operator that it was entitled to a further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs, the tribunal fixed the matter for further hearing on 19 April.

    The tribunal noted that there is no material to prima facie substantiate this assertion and saw no reason to allow any further reduction in the dues which the petitioner could be liable to pay to the respondent as an interim measure.

    Canara Star had originally come before the tribunal against disconnection notices by Star India as for default in payment. One of the grounds on which the disconnection notice were challenged was that another MSO had started operating in those areas and as a result the petitioner’s subscriber base had gone down substantially and the petitioner had been making request for downgradation of its subscriber base and consequently a reduction in the fixed fee payable by it as monthly subscription fee.  There appeared to be some substance in the petitioner’s grievance and on a joint request, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre.

    The tribunal was informed that before the Mediation Centre, the parties were able to arrive at some understanding in regard to Kumta and Bhatkal areas but Canara Star was also getting signals from Star India for transmission in the DAS area of Bangalore and there too the MSO happened to be in default in payment of the subscription fees.

    Star India wanted a comprehensive settlement that should cover both analogue and digital areas covering not only Kumta and Bhatkal but Bangalore also. A comprehensive settlement, as desired by Star India could not take place and the matter came back to the tribunal.

    The subscription agreement between the parties relating to Kumta and Bhatkal came to end on 31 June 2015.  Under the subscription agreement, the petitioner was liable to pay the monthly subscription fee at the rate of Rs.2,60,081 per month for Kumta and Rs.2,10,716 per month for Bhatkal.  In February 2015 when the petition was filed before the Tribunal the dues against the petitioner amounted to Rs.32.95 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. By order of 3 February 2015, the petitioner was directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount in two installments subject to which Star India was directed not to disconnect the supply of its signals to Canara Star. Thereafter, the MSO had made some further payments of admitted dues in terms of orders passed by the tribunal from time to time and it continues to receive the signals for transmission in those areas.

    No fresh subscription agreement has so far been executed between the parties.

    According to the respondent, at the rate fixed under the expired agreement, its dues against the MSO now amount to Rs.48.94 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. Star India counsel Kunal Tandon however submitted that in course of the mediation proceedings, Star India had agreed to give the MSO a discount of Rs.1,07,305 per month for Kumta area and Rs.67,703 for Bhatkal area with effect from November 2014.  He submitted that if computations are made taking into account the discount to which the respondent had agreed and computing the monthly subscription fees after allowing the discounts, the dues would come to Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal upto 31.03.2016.

    However, Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh wanted further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs.

  • Canara Star asked by TDSAT to pay Star India Rs 18.91 lakh subject to final outcome of dispute

    Canara Star asked by TDSAT to pay Star India Rs 18.91 lakh subject to final outcome of dispute

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed  Canara Star Communications Pvt Ltd Karnataka, to pay to Star India a sum of Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal up to 3 March 2016.

    Chairman  Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said “These payments are interim and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party.”

    Rejecting the plea by the multi-system operator that it was entitled to a further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs, the tribunal fixed the matter for further hearing on 19 April.

    The tribunal noted that there is no material to prima facie substantiate this assertion and saw no reason to allow any further reduction in the dues which the petitioner could be liable to pay to the respondent as an interim measure.

    Canara Star had originally come before the tribunal against disconnection notices by Star India as for default in payment. One of the grounds on which the disconnection notice were challenged was that another MSO had started operating in those areas and as a result the petitioner’s subscriber base had gone down substantially and the petitioner had been making request for downgradation of its subscriber base and consequently a reduction in the fixed fee payable by it as monthly subscription fee.  There appeared to be some substance in the petitioner’s grievance and on a joint request, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre.

    The tribunal was informed that before the Mediation Centre, the parties were able to arrive at some understanding in regard to Kumta and Bhatkal areas but Canara Star was also getting signals from Star India for transmission in the DAS area of Bangalore and there too the MSO happened to be in default in payment of the subscription fees.

    Star India wanted a comprehensive settlement that should cover both analogue and digital areas covering not only Kumta and Bhatkal but Bangalore also. A comprehensive settlement, as desired by Star India could not take place and the matter came back to the tribunal.

    The subscription agreement between the parties relating to Kumta and Bhatkal came to end on 31 June 2015.  Under the subscription agreement, the petitioner was liable to pay the monthly subscription fee at the rate of Rs.2,60,081 per month for Kumta and Rs.2,10,716 per month for Bhatkal.  In February 2015 when the petition was filed before the Tribunal the dues against the petitioner amounted to Rs.32.95 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. By order of 3 February 2015, the petitioner was directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount in two installments subject to which Star India was directed not to disconnect the supply of its signals to Canara Star. Thereafter, the MSO had made some further payments of admitted dues in terms of orders passed by the tribunal from time to time and it continues to receive the signals for transmission in those areas.

    No fresh subscription agreement has so far been executed between the parties.

    According to the respondent, at the rate fixed under the expired agreement, its dues against the MSO now amount to Rs.48.94 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. Star India counsel Kunal Tandon however submitted that in course of the mediation proceedings, Star India had agreed to give the MSO a discount of Rs.1,07,305 per month for Kumta area and Rs.67,703 for Bhatkal area with effect from November 2014.  He submitted that if computations are made taking into account the discount to which the respondent had agreed and computing the monthly subscription fees after allowing the discounts, the dues would come to Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal upto 31.03.2016.

    However, Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh wanted further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs.

  • TDSAT directs Induslnd to pay Rs 26.55 crore to Taj TV subject to verification of March payment

    TDSAT directs Induslnd to pay Rs 26.55 crore to Taj TV subject to verification of March payment

    NEW DELHl: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd to pay at least the minimum Rs.26,55,14,607 demanded by Taj TV subject to verification of payments made in March. Consequently, Indusind Counsel Vandana D Jaisingh handed over to Taj TV counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia, four cheques amounting to Rs.10 crores.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava directed Indusind to pay the balance amount of Rs.16,55,14,607 subject to verification of the amount paid by it in the month of March 2016.  
    The cheques would be dated 31 March but Bhatia said that they would be presented for encashment before the bank only in the first week of May. Apart from this payment, Indusind was liable to make payment for the month of April subject to any special discount, if any, in terms of the agreement.

    At the outset, the Tribunal noted that during the pendency of the petition, the two sides had executed a memo of understanding (MOU) on 30 March covering the period 01 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, that is to say, the period when there was no agreement between the parties and Indusind continued to receive signals from Taj TV.
    But the Tribunal noted that: “It is ironical that having executed the agreement on 30 March, the parties are once again in dispute in regard to the Indusind’s liability for payment under the MoU.”

    On a prima facie reading, the MoU crystallised Indusind’s liability up to 31 January 2016 at the sum of Rs.43,61,34,240. Beyond 31 January, the monthly subscription fees for both Taj and Turner TV channels for the months of February and March 2016 came to Rs.15,41,74,250 (at the rate of Rs.7,70,87,125 for each month for Taj and Turner TV channels).  Thus, the total liability of Indusind up to 31 March.came to Rs.44,59,15,007 but taking into account certain payments made by it in the month of March, the liability went down to Rs.43,61,34,240.

    Indusind also claimed certain deductions in terms of the special discount given by the respondent after the execution of the agreement. Indusind further claimed certain deductions on account of TDS.

    Bhatia submitted before the Tribunal a chart that took into account the special discounts and on a deduction made for the same and Indusind’s liability further went down to Rs.26,55,14,607.

    According to this chart, the collection received from Indusind in March 2016 amounted to Rs.9,97,80,767 but Jaisingh, wanted to verify the correctness of this figure as she said the payment made by Indusind in March 2016 could be a little more than the figure shown in Bhatia’s chart.

     

  • TDSAT directs Induslnd to pay Rs 26.55 crore to Taj TV subject to verification of March payment

    TDSAT directs Induslnd to pay Rs 26.55 crore to Taj TV subject to verification of March payment

    NEW DELHl: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd to pay at least the minimum Rs.26,55,14,607 demanded by Taj TV subject to verification of payments made in March. Consequently, Indusind Counsel Vandana D Jaisingh handed over to Taj TV counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia, four cheques amounting to Rs.10 crores.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava directed Indusind to pay the balance amount of Rs.16,55,14,607 subject to verification of the amount paid by it in the month of March 2016.  
    The cheques would be dated 31 March but Bhatia said that they would be presented for encashment before the bank only in the first week of May. Apart from this payment, Indusind was liable to make payment for the month of April subject to any special discount, if any, in terms of the agreement.

    At the outset, the Tribunal noted that during the pendency of the petition, the two sides had executed a memo of understanding (MOU) on 30 March covering the period 01 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, that is to say, the period when there was no agreement between the parties and Indusind continued to receive signals from Taj TV.
    But the Tribunal noted that: “It is ironical that having executed the agreement on 30 March, the parties are once again in dispute in regard to the Indusind’s liability for payment under the MoU.”

    On a prima facie reading, the MoU crystallised Indusind’s liability up to 31 January 2016 at the sum of Rs.43,61,34,240. Beyond 31 January, the monthly subscription fees for both Taj and Turner TV channels for the months of February and March 2016 came to Rs.15,41,74,250 (at the rate of Rs.7,70,87,125 for each month for Taj and Turner TV channels).  Thus, the total liability of Indusind up to 31 March.came to Rs.44,59,15,007 but taking into account certain payments made by it in the month of March, the liability went down to Rs.43,61,34,240.

    Indusind also claimed certain deductions in terms of the special discount given by the respondent after the execution of the agreement. Indusind further claimed certain deductions on account of TDS.

    Bhatia submitted before the Tribunal a chart that took into account the special discounts and on a deduction made for the same and Indusind’s liability further went down to Rs.26,55,14,607.

    According to this chart, the collection received from Indusind in March 2016 amounted to Rs.9,97,80,767 but Jaisingh, wanted to verify the correctness of this figure as she said the payment made by Indusind in March 2016 could be a little more than the figure shown in Bhatia’s chart.

     

  • TDSAT: Rohtak LCOs have by and large complied with compilation of SAFs

    TDSAT: Rohtak LCOs have by and large complied with compilation of SAFs

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has described as ‘unfounded’ the allegations made on behalf of Siti Cable Networks with regard to submission of subscription application forms (SAFs) of local cable operators of Rohtak.

    Under the directions of the tribunal, a joint inspection of the website of the Rohtak  Cable Operator Association, Haryana  was completed, and the report duly signed by counsel for two sides and the director of TDSAT.

    The tribunal said that according to the joint report, the LCOs had jointly and collectively submitted around 60 per cent of SAFs to Siti Cable Networks by 30 March. Some individual LCOs had submitted as much as 90 per cent of SAFs.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava directed the LCOs being represented in this petition to complete the submission of their respective SAFs as early as possible The matter was listed for 27 April when some other similar matters are also due to come up.

     

  • TDSAT: Rohtak LCOs have by and large complied with compilation of SAFs

    TDSAT: Rohtak LCOs have by and large complied with compilation of SAFs

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has described as ‘unfounded’ the allegations made on behalf of Siti Cable Networks with regard to submission of subscription application forms (SAFs) of local cable operators of Rohtak.

    Under the directions of the tribunal, a joint inspection of the website of the Rohtak  Cable Operator Association, Haryana  was completed, and the report duly signed by counsel for two sides and the director of TDSAT.

    The tribunal said that according to the joint report, the LCOs had jointly and collectively submitted around 60 per cent of SAFs to Siti Cable Networks by 30 March. Some individual LCOs had submitted as much as 90 per cent of SAFs.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava directed the LCOs being represented in this petition to complete the submission of their respective SAFs as early as possible The matter was listed for 27 April when some other similar matters are also due to come up.

     

  • Star India asked by TDSAT to extend interconnect pact with Monalisa to Chapra town

    Star India asked by TDSAT to extend interconnect pact with Monalisa to Chapra town

    NEW DELHI: Star India has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to extend the interconnect agreement existing between it and Monalisa Cable Network to include Chapra town.

    In the order, TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava asked Star India to add 18 more subscribers for raising its invoices to Monalisa.

    The tribunal noted that the report of the Advocate Commissioner had shown that Monalisa had a total of only 18 subscribers in the township of Chapra, district Nadia, West Bengal.

    The tribunal said the necessary formalities may be completed by 6 April and the petitioner may be allowed to re-transmit the signals to Chapra town by that day.