ITV

Tag: case

  • Zeel-Invesco case: Bombay high court adjourns hearing to 29 Nov

    Zeel-Invesco case: Bombay high court adjourns hearing to 29 Nov

    Mumbai: On Friday, the Bombay high court adjourned the hearing on Invesco’s plea that challenged the injunction order of the single judge bench of the same court. The next hearing will be held on 29 November.

    Invesco, the largest shareholder in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (Zeel) had approached the court on Thursday to challenge the injunction order passed by the bench in a petition filed by Zeel against the investor.

    The court had ruled in favour of Zeel granting it temporary relief against the requisition notice by Invesco to call for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of shareholders to pass a resolution to remove the sitting board of directors and appoint a new board. 

    The Zeel-Invesco tussle began when the media company’s two top investors Invesco Developing Markets Fund and OFI Global China Fund LLC who combined own 18 per cent stake in the company had sent a requisition notice to the company on 11 September to call an EGM even after two weeks, the investors moved to the NCLT, citing provisions of company law, according to which the company is bound to call for an EGM within a specific number of days, if stakeholder demanding it owns more than 10 per cent of the company.

    The investors had also sought the removal of long-standing directors and close associates of the Chandra family from the board. The two independent directors Ashok Kurien and Manish Chokhani have already submitted their resignations. 

    The investors moved to have six nominees appointed to the board of Zeel, which included Surendra Singh Sirohi, Naina Krishna Murthy, Rohan Dhamija, Aruna Sharma, Srinivasa Rao Addepali and Gaurav Mehta as independent directors of the board for a term up to five consecutive years. The notice was received by Zeel on 12 September, and it informed the stock exchanges on 13 September, adding that the appointments are subject to approval by ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB).

    Zeel refused to conduct the EGM citing ‘shareholders interest’ and moved to Bombay high court on 2 October seeking to declare the requisition notice as “illegal and invalid.”

  • Petition challenging TRAI tariff on DAS to be heard on 8 December

    Petition challenging TRAI tariff on DAS to be heard on 8 December

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) will hear the petition by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) challenging the DAS tariff order issued in July by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) relating to commercial subscribers on 8 December.

    The matter was to be heard in the Tribunal on 5 December but was pushed for next week because the bench was busy dealing with another part-heard case.

     In the last hearing in October, Counsel Abhishek Malhotra, who represents the IBF, had wanted time to file a rejoinder to the reply filed by TRAI following a notice in this regard in September.

     In the tariff order, TRAI had said commercial establishments, who do not specifically charge its clients/guests on account of providing/showing television programmes and offer such services as part of amenities, are to be treated like ordinary subscribers wherein the charges would be on per television basis.

     In cases where commercial subscribers specifically charge its clients/guests on account of providing/showing television programmes, the tariff would be as mutually agreed between the broadcaster and the commercial subscriber.

     TRAI had also said that the commercial subscriber was to obtain television service only from a distribution platform operator (MSO/DTH Operator/IPTV operator/HITS operator).

     The tariff order amendment has been brought out as per the directions of the Supreme Court. It is expected that with the coming into force of these changes in the regulatory framework, the distribution of TV services to the commercial subscribers would be streamlined and the services would be available to them at competitive rates.

     

  • Hearing on Kantar petition adjourned till 11 July

    Hearing on Kantar petition adjourned till 11 July

    MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court today adjourned hearing on a petition by Kantar Market Research Services challenging the government’s cross-shareholding norm for television rating agencies till 11 July.

     

    The court had earlier stayed operation of the cross-shareholding norm till the case is disposed of. And in accordance with the court’s directive, TAM Media Research, which is jointly owned by Kantar and Nielsen, last month applied to the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting for its registration as a television ratings service.

     

    The cross-shareholding norm, which came into effect from 15 February, debars shareholders owning more than 10 per cent of a television rating agency from having stakes in broadcasters and advertising agencies.

     

    TAM has also been allowed to continue publishing its television ratings till the court decides on the Kantar petition.

     

    Kantar had today sought adjournment of the case to April but the court decided to have the next hearing only in July.

     

    The election commission on Wednesday announced the dates for the 9-phase polling for Lok Sabha elections and the results would be announced on May 16.

     

    With the announcement of the election schedule, the election code of conduct came into effect which bars governments from taking any policy decisions.

  • Kantar gets stay on cross-shareholding norms; TAM can continue publishing viewership ratings

    Kantar gets stay on cross-shareholding norms; TAM can continue publishing viewership ratings

    NEW DELHI: While declining to stay Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India, the Delhi High Court today directed that the sections relating to cross-holding will not come into force till the conclusion of the petition by Kantar Market Research Services, a shareholder of TAM Media Research, the only television viewership rating agency in India.

     

    Fixing the next date of hearing for 6 March, Justice Manmohan also stayed sections 16.1 and 16.2 of the Guidelines, thus giving freedom to TAM to continue offering its ratings to its clients.

     

    Taking note of the undertaking by Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel for Kantar, the Court said TAM would get another two weeks to get registered as required by the Policy Guidelines.

    The Court also took note of the undertaking by Rohatgi that the full list of companies that are associated with TAM and their clients will be placed on the website within two weeks.

     

    The sections relating to cross-holding which state that the same company cannot hold shares in both TRP companies and the media are 1.7a and 1.7d.

     

    The earlier deadline for TAM Media Research to get registered under the Policy Guidelines was 15 February.

     

    When Rohatgi insisted on a stay of the policy guidelines till conclusion of this case, Justice Manmohan and Additional Solicitor General Rajeev Mehra said senior counsel Harish Salve who had argued on behalf of Kantar yesterday had made it clear that he was only fighting the issue of cross-shareholding. In fact, Justice Manmohan said Salve repeated this point at least five times.

     

    Rohatgi had sought to reiterate the point made by Salve that the policy guidelines had been issued through an executive action without any statutory authority of law.

     

    While Rohatgi filed an affidavit today listing companies that have a holding in Kantar, he assured the Judge that the list of clients would also be place shortly on the website and filed in the court.

     

    In his order, the Judge took note of the fact that both Salve and Rohatgi have argued that the guidelines are without the sanction of any statutory body.

    Kantar had argued yesterday that any action relating to fundamental rights had to be done through an act of Parliament and not by an executive order.

    Salve had said any attempt to regulate television rating agencies was tantamount to interfering with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

     

    The provisions of Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India that have been stayed are:
     
    1.7 The company shall comply with the following cross holdings requirements.
     
     (a) No single company/ legal entity, either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings, shall have substantial equity holding in rating agencies and broadcasters/advertisers/ advertising agencies.
     
     (d) A promoter company/member of the board of directors of the rating agency cannot have stakes in any broadcaster/ advertiser/advertising agency either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings.
     
    16. PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING RATING AGENCIES
     
    16.1 These guidelines shall also be applicable to the existing rating agencies.
     
    16.2 No rating agency shall generate and publish ratings till such time that they comply with the provisions of these guidelines.

  • Kantar gets stay on cross-shareholding norms; TAM allowed to publish ratings

    Kantar gets stay on cross-shareholding norms; TAM allowed to publish ratings

    NEW DELHI:  Kantar Market Research Services has managed to get the relief it wanted from the Delhi High Court on the cross-shareholding norms for television rating agencies.

     

    On a petition by Kantar challenging the government’s cross-shareholding norms for TV ratings agencies, the HC has stayed the operation of four sections — 1.7a, 1.7d, 16.1 and 16.2 — that relate to cross-shareholdings and to publishing of TV viewership ratings  in the Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India.

     

    Kantar had filed the petition as the new policy would have resulted in TAM Media Research, a company it has jointly promoted with Nielsen India, having to shut operations.

     

    The court has given TAM two weeks to register itself under all the other provisions of the policy that was recently approved by the Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs and comes into effect from 15 February.

     

    In addition, the court has also stayed the operation of a clause that prevents existing TV rating agencies from publishing viewership ratings till they company with the provisions of the policy. TAM is the only company in India providing TV viewership ratings.

     

    The Delhi High Court will hear further arguments in the case on 6 March.

     

    Meanwhile, TAM has been ordered to place on its website the list of its shareholders and also the list of its clients.

     

    The provisions of Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India that have been stayed are:

     

    1.7 The company shall comply with the following cross holdings requirements.

     

     (a) No single company/ legal entity, either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings, shall have substantial equity holding in rating agencies and broadcasters/advertisers/ advertising agencies.

     

     (d) A promoter company/member of the board of directors of the rating agency cannot have stakes in any broadcaster/ advertiser/advertising agency either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings.

     

    16. PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING RATING AGENCIES

     

    16.1 These guidelines shall also be applicable to the existing rating agencies.

     

    16.2 No rating agency shall generate and publish ratings till such time that they comply with the provisions of these guidelines.

     

    Click here for the updated story

  • Kantar argues TV ratings regulation requires legislative action

    Kantar argues TV ratings regulation requires legislative action

    NEW DELHI: Kantar Market Research Services, a promoter of India’s only television ratings agency TAM Media Research, said today that any action relating to fundamental rights had to be done through an act of Parliament and not by an executive order.

     

    Harish Salve, counsel for Kantar, said during the hearing on his client’s petition in the Delhi High Court against regulations for television ratings agencies that the government should have issued an ordinance and then replaced it with an act of Parliament since any attempt to regulate television ratings agencies was tantamount to interfering with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Any order curtailing fundamental rights must have statutory backing, he claimed.

     

    He said even the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India which had earlier given a report on TV ratings in 2008 and the Parliamentary Standing Committee which had considered the issue later in the same year had been of the view that the government could not tamper with the content. In any case, Salve argued that TRAI was only concerned with carriage and not content and can only make recommendations.

     

    He wondered why the Government did not act after it received the TRAI report in 2008 to push through legislation on this issue.

     

    He said the executive order under Article 73 was part of the government’s agenda to push for control of content.
     

    He said there will be a complete blackout of television viewership ratings under new government regulations since the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) was still in the planning stage.
     

    He also said that the law was in any case clear that the government was a licensor for broadcasting and not TAM which was a private rating agency. As a private agency, it could not be told not to have cross-media holding.
     

    While still not granting a stay on the regulations that come into effect from 15 February, Justice Manmohan said he will continue hearing the case tomorrow but may consider ‘interim arrangements’ if the hearing lingers on.

     

    The Judge also asked Kantar to place on its website the shareholding pattern of various shareholders in TAM since the primary objection taken by Kantar is to the reference to cross-media holding in the proposed regulations.  

     

    The three respondents Union of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) have filed their affidavits and will present their views tomorrow on Kantar’s petition for an interim stay. 

     

    Salve, who concluded his arguments today, said Kantar did not have any cross-holding in the broadcasting sector. He claimed that TAM was operational in 37 countries.
     

    Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who also represented Kantar, said the committee that recommended BARC had itself admitted that TAM was the best rating agency in the country, and had not made any recommendations with regard to cross-media holdings.

     

    During the last hearing, the judge had wanted to know why TAM was not present itself, and Salve said that the issue of cross-media holdings mentioned in the guidelines affected Kantar which was a major shareholder and not TAM.

  • Delhi HC to further hear Kantar case tomorrow; hints at an interim arrangement

    Delhi HC to further hear Kantar case tomorrow; hints at an interim arrangement

    NEW DELHI: The deadline for implementing the TV ratings agencies policy is inching closer. But Kantar Market Research Services, a shareholder of current and only ratings agency TAM, had decided that it had to challenge the guidelines in the Delhi High Court.

     

    While still not giving it a stay order today, the court has decided that it will continue hearing the case. The next date of hearing is tomorrow. Kantar counsel today argued that the directive of the ministry on TV ratings guidelines had been done under an executive action, which can be questioned in a court of law. Counsel for Kantar also said that since the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) was still under formation, there would be a total blackout if TAM is not allowed to function.

     

    Justice Manmohan while hearing the case remarked that though he was in favour of concluding the hearing before 15 February, he would ‘consider issuing an interim arrangement if the hearing goes on longer than that date’. 15 February is when the guidelines will become effective.

     

    The three respondents Union of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) will present their case on Kantar’s petition for an interim stay order tomorrow. 

     

    Click here for the updated story

  • Why the NBA joined the respondents battling Kantar in the courts

    Why the NBA joined the respondents battling Kantar in the courts

    MUMBAI: When Kantar Market Research Services, a shareholder of TAM media research, decided to go to court to legally oppose one of the guidelines that had been recently approved by the cabinet committee on economic affairs, it raised some eyebrows though the move was not unexpected. And even though Kantar was not given a stay  on the legality of the cross holding  legislation that it has been seeking, what came as a surprise on day two of the hearing was when the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) was made a party to the case.

     

    What made the biggest news broadcasting representative body in the country decide to intervene in the case and be subsequently made a part of it? Contrary to what many may believe, the NBA is not against Kantar but rather it is in favour of the guidelines. “We went as interveners to show our support to the approved guidelines and the court decided that we should be a part of it,” says a senior official from the NBA.

     

    The news organisation has always been vocal on the alleged  irregularities and kinks in TAM’s rating system. “We had decided a while ago that we would make a mention of our support in court. Change in the way the ratings are delivered has been pending for several years and finally the moment of truth has arrived  and so we don’t need it to be stalled again,” informed the official.

     

    In mid-2013, several news channels members of the NBA had decided to boycott TAM claiming that its TV ratings data was rigged. Voices in support of the upcoming agency the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) grew overwhelmingly. The NBA now feels that there could be no better time than now for the guidelines to come into effect.

     

    The case which is ongoing in the Delhi High Court is now being fought by the petitioner Kantar  against the government of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the NBA. In media interviews Kantar has stated that it won’t go down so easily and that the cross holding guideline it has challenged will make its life and existence a misery.

     

    In the hearing on 29 January, the HC decided not to give a stay order to Kantar since the regulation was promulgated  by a statutory body – the TRAI. On the same day, the NBA pointed out that TAM operates on a small sample size of just 8,000 people. The case will next be heard on 11 February.

     

    All the three respondents have a week’s time to file their respective affidavits to the court.

     

    In October last year when the ad cap case was ongoing in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), three broadcasters namely Star, Zee and Viacom18 had tried to become  interveners in support of the 12 minute ad cap regulation but they had been barred from doing so since their representative body – the Indian Broadcasting Foundation – had decided to withdraw the appeal against the ad cap. However, the NBA claims it has consistently been vocal about its views on TV viewership ratings, hence its candidature as an intervener has validity.

     

    The key questions now are whether the HC will offer a lifeline to TAM  by imposing a stay on implementation of the cross holding guideline or whether will it cut off its oxygen supply?

  • No stay order for Kantar for now: Delhi HC

    No stay order for Kantar for now: Delhi HC

    NEW DELHI: It was just a week ago that one of the shareholders of TAM – Kantar Market Research decided to move the High Court against the TV ratings guidelines. Now, as the case was taken up in the Delhi High Court today, the issue has become a little clearer.
     

    According to the HC, Kantar won’t get a stay order on the petition for now just because the deadline to make the TV ratings guidelines is effective from 15 February. However, Judge Manmohan said that Kantar’s case will be heard again on 11 February and a final decision will be taken then.
     

    Counsel for Kantar, Harish Salve argued that the stay order was necessary as the guidelines were not framed under any statute of law. Additional Solicitor General Rajeev Mehra, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, said that the guidelines had been recommended by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) which was a statutory body. The judge also remarked the same. Both Mehra and the counsel for TRAI accepted the notice and agreed to file their affidavits within time.

     

    The other big development in the case was the inclusion of the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) also coming as an intervener and joining the case as the third respondent apart from the Union of India and the TRAI. NBA counsel, A J Bhambhani pointed out that TAM only covered about 8000 homes in India, which doesn’t cover all the TV homes and thus isn’t a complete survey.
     

    Interestingly, the judge curious to know why instead of TAM approaching the court, a stakeholder Kantar has taken the step. To this, Salve said that the move was taken as Kantar is a major shareholder in TAM and the guideline related to cross holding affects Kantar and not TAM.

     

    Responding to a question posed by the judge, Salve said that TAM had nothing to gain by pushing up the TRPs. Its clients were advertisers and broadcasters and not the common viewer. Any rigs in ratings would be strongly protested against, he said. Salve also brought to the fore that regulations or guidelines need to be placed before the Parliament for approval.
     

    The case will now be heard once again on 11 February with Kantar fighting it out against the government, TRAI and the NBA.

     

     

  • TAM shareholder Kantar takes Indian govt to court on TV ratings guidelines

    TAM shareholder Kantar takes Indian govt to court on TV ratings guidelines

    MUMBAI: So Indian TV ratings agency TAM Media will not go down without a fight. At least if one goes by the action of one of its shareholders  Kantar Market Research Services. The latter approached the Delhi High Court on 20 January, filing a writ petition against the Union of India. The writ petition states that the government’s TV ratings agency registration regulations have put the existence of its venture TAM in jeopardy, and that too after it has been operating in India for more than 15 years.

    Diya Kapur, who appeared on behalf of Kantar – during the hearing today – appealed that TAM has been in the business for a very long time and the new guidelines on cross holding restrictions will mean that it will have to go out of business.

    Kantar Market Reserach Services Pvt Ltd, a shareholder of television rating agency TAM Media, was today directed by the Delhi High Court to file in a week an affidavit detailing its shareholding in any advertising/ broadcasting companies either directly or indirectly.

     

    A bench of justice Manmohan directed Kantar and its director Thomas Puliyel, who have challenged the guidelines for television rating agencies, to also mention “the Indian companies in which the petitoner (Kantar) holds shareholding.”

    High Court judge Justice Manmohan then asked Kantar to furnish documents relating to the shareholding pattern in TAM. “This would be in the form of an affidavit detailing its shareholding in any broadcasting firm/advertising agency, either directly or indirectly.The affidavit would also mention any other Indian company in which the petitioner holds any shareholding. It would also state that none of the aforesaid companies in which Kantar have shareholding in excess of 10 per cent has done business for any entity which was involved in any ratings exercise done by TAM. If that is not so, then the details of such instances shall be given,” the single member bench said.

    The court gave Kantar Media a week to come back with the documents and adjourned the hearing for 29 January.

    But already industry sources are questioning why did Kantar Market Research Services decide to approach the courts alone? Why did TAM Media not do so? And why did only one of the two shareholders seek legal redressal? Why wasn’t AC Nielsen also a party to the case against the Union of India?  These are questions to which indiantelevision.com has no answers to right now. But keep watching this space for further developments.

    Agencies and advertisers will be too. Various stakeholders – who need ratings to know how their money is being spent – have been urging TAM Media to take legal recourse as they are quite averse to a situation of a TV ratings dark period. But with now one of its stakeholders taking steps to try and remedy the situation, they have some hope.

    The ministry of information and broadcasting is quite clear that the course has been set and there is no going back. Speaking to indiantelevison.com MIB officials have been quite clear that they don’t want to be seen favouring anybody – especially TAM. “Industry and TAM have been given a long time to do course corrections on the ratings,” said a MIB official. “More than half a decade. Why did they not do so? Why complain now? In fact, we did not want a ratings blackout; based on industry feedback earlier – they had said BARC ratings would start rolling by March 2014 – we went easy on the TV ratings regulations and got government approval in mid-January 2014. TAM had 30 days to shape up; if it did not do so, then there would be a minimal rating blackout period, with BARC rolling out its ratings.”

    In fact, even as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had recommended a tranistion period of six months for TAM Media, the MIB had in its recommendations said zero days, but that was finally extended to 30 days by the Cabinet.

    The MIB has stated that it will take on any legal challenges, which are posed against the regulations.  Industry executives can expect some skirmishes ahead – at least in the courts.