ITV

Tag: CL Thakker

  • After HC refuses to intervene, CAS effectively in force in Mumbai

    After HC refuses to intervene, CAS effectively in force in Mumbai

    MUMBAI: The Central government must have been hoping that the courts would deliver a ruling on conditional access that would enable it to do what it had abjectly failed to do thus far – enforce CAS in recalcitrant cities like Mumbai.

    In the event, a two-judge division bench of the Mumbai High Court headed by Chief Justice CL Thakker still left it to the government “to do or not to do” on whether CAS should be enforced in Mumbai or not.

    While indiantelevision.com is still awaiting a final copy of the judges’ order, the legal interpretation appears to be that the court is not coming in the way of the implementation of CAS. The court has clearly said though that no interim order will be passed either for or against CAS. Therefore, by extension what it means is that CAS is in force as per the latest government notification

    This is significant because the ten-day grace period for CAS implementation that had been granted in Mumbai on account of the Ganesh Chaturthi festival ends today. As per the original schedule, Zone 1 in Mumbai, Kolkata and the whole of Chennai were to become CAS-delivered from 1 September.

    In effect, this means that the MSOs are technically well within their legal rights to enforce CAS in the designated Zone 1 area of south Mumbai. And if the government were to abide by its own notification, it would mean that the MSOs were in fact liable for prosecution if they did not black out all pay channels not delivered through a set top box.

    Of course there is the “small matter” of the Shiv Sena being opposed “tooth and claw” to CAS at this juncture so whether anyone is willing to take on the tiger is the moot point.

    NEXT HEARING OF CABLE CASE IN JANUARY
    Coming back to the High Court ruling, around eight petitions that were clubbed together under the “cable case” were heard today. The High Court bench, after listening to arguments from all sides, proclaimed that the various petitions will be heard in January 2004.

    The court has admitted all the petitions; but proposed to take its time to hear the various arguments. Sources say that the court didn’t want to pass any ruling at this stage because the process of CAS rollout is currently on and the situation is still unclear.

    Today, the government’s counsel and additional solicitor-general of Maharashtra SB Jaisinghani proclaimed in the court that the Central government has merely given an extension of 10 days to Mumbai’s cable trade due to Ganesh Chaturthi. As far as the Central government is concerned, the government lawyer specified that CAS is already on in the notified areas of Mumbai.

    The lawyers representing the multi-system operators (MSO) claimed that their clients have invested a lot of money on setting up infrastructure for the conditional access system (CAS). “The court admitted all the petitions and refused to stay the implementation of CAS in the city,” says Janak Dwarkadas who represents Hinduja MSO INCableNet.

    NGO Consumer Action Network (CAN) president advocate Ahmad M Abdi says: “I raised this point about the fact the CAS rollout is restricted to south Mumbai. There is no protection for the cable consumers in other zones who are being discriminated against.”

    BJP member of parliament Kirit Somaiya’s lawyer Chaitanya Dhruve Mehta said that his client’s stand has been validated because the government has gone ahead with CAS implementation. “All the petitions have been admitted and the court has decided to stand by the Central government’s decision to go ahead with CAS. Post CAS, consumers will have to pay for whatever they choose to see. The minimum rate for watching free-to-air channels and certain top pay channels will be less than Rs 150 per month,” adds Mehta.

    CAN president Abdi adds: “The recent amendments to the Cable TV (Regulation) Networks Act 1995 state that errant cable operators violating the provisions of the act are liable for prosecution as the same has been declared cognisable offences; wherein the local police may initiate appropriate action against the errant cable operator.”

    Some cable operators have taken the judgment to mean that they are no longer bound by the earlier injunction on their raising rates before CAS was rolled out.

    Till the copy of the order is in hand though, what all this exactly means will have to wait.

  • Mumbai ‘cable case’ hearing scheduled Wednesday

    Mumbai ‘cable case’ hearing scheduled Wednesday

    MUMBAI: Will it be another date or will some ruling finally be delivered on the ongoing “cable case”.

    Going by the way the proceedings have gone thus far, with more and more petitions being clubbed into the case, another date will surprise no one.

    For the record, a two-judge division bench of the Mumbai High Court headed by Chief Justice CL Thakker will be hearing around eight petitions that have been clubbed together under the cable case. It is the 24th case listed for hearing tomorrow therefore is expected to come up for arguments in the afternoon.

  • Mumbai High Court to hear ‘cable case’ on 10 September

    Mumbai High Court to hear ‘cable case’ on 10 September

    MUMBAI: It was quite inevitable but those were expecting to get a ruling got another date. A division bench of the Mumbai High Court comprising Chief Justice CL Thakker and Dr Dhananjay Chandrachud, after listening to arguments from both sides, proclaimed the next date of the ‘cable case’ hearing – 10 September.

    However, several Mumbai-based lawyers are of the opinion that the central government’s dithering over the decision to postpone CAS (conditional access system) rollout in Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata can be challenged.

    On 3 September, there was intense confusion as one petition came up for hearing before noon; but several lawyers of concerned petitioners and respondents weren’t present; and it was decided to club the petition with the other petitions that were to be heard at 2:45 pm.

    Finally, the union informed the court that the city had been given a 10-day grace period due to the ongoing festival of Ganesh Chaturti. Since CAS is not expected to happen till 10 September, the next hearing will also take place on the same date.

    The indiantelevision.com team spoke to some lawyers and obtained reactions from them:

    The president of an NGO Consumer Action Network lawyer Ahmad Abdi says: “The government must clearly clarify its stand. How can the government hesitate in implementing CAS when a law has been passed in the Parliament of the country – the highest legislative authority in the country?”

    Talking about the partial implementation of CAS, Abdi says: “The government cannot discriminate between cities. How can the government cite the excuses such as political compulsions rather than administrative compuslions in the postponement of CAS rollout in Delhi? The government’s haphazard ways might have legal implications and consumers are suffering. Anyone who challenges the government’s decision will have a strong case as per the law.”

    The lawyers representing the multi-system operators argued that the government must go ahead with CAS rollout.

    Lawyer Janak Dwarkadas, who represents the multi system operator INCableNet also agrees: “The government’s stance is causing prejudice to the multi-system operators. Incidentally, INCableNet has invested millions in setting up CAS infrastructure. Moreover, several consumers have taken advantage of the earlier ruling and are abstaining from paying monthly cable rents. Yesterday, we argued in court and emphasised that the government must go ahead with the rollout of CAS in the various cities as specified in both the houses of the Parliament.”

    Darshan Mehta of Dhruve Liladhar & Co, who represents BJP member of Parliament Kirit Somaiya says the court has decide to persist with its earlier ruling that the cable operators can charge 10 per cent more than the rates applicable as on 31 December 2002. “More importantly, the court has maintained that cable operators cannot disconnect connections of those who pay this amount. Now, we shall wait for the next hearing on 10 September,” adds Mehta.

    It looks as if the court is taking its own time till there is more clarity amongst the various elements of the government, the I&B ministry and the politicians.

  • Mumbai High Court sets next cable case date for 3 September

    MUMBAI: The trade was anxiously awaiting a decision but all they got was another date. A division bench of the Mumbai High Court comprising Chief Justice CL Thakker and Dr Dhananjay Chandrachud, after listening to arguments from both sides, posted the next date of hearing for 3 September.
    Incidentally, the rollout of conditional access systems in the four metros is scheduled to kick off from 1 September.
    “There is no will to sort out the problem. However, it is a win-win situation for the politicians. Even if their petition is dismissed, later on, they can claim they tried their best and score political brownie points. But, the trade will continue to suffer due to consumers refusing to pay and taking recourse to the campaign of the politicians. With the decision being postponed, we shall have to battle on in order to collect our rightful dues,” a cable operator had earlier told indiantelevision.com, on condition on anonymity.

  • Mumbai HC postpones hearing of cable case to 23 July

    Mumbai HC postpones hearing of cable case to 23 July

    MUMBAI: A division bench of the Mumbai High Court hearing the public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Mumbai High Court early this year – or the “cable case” as it has come to be known – has scheduled the next hearing for 23 July.

    In fact, even as a High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice CL Thakker and VK Tahilaramani heard the various arguments, important developments related to pricing of pay channels were taking place in Delhi. 

    After hearing arguments from the various parties, the judges fixed the next date for hearing as 13 July.

    However, they modified the interim relief order dated 7 March stating that cable operators will be permitted to recover 10 per cent more than the cable rates appicable (or charged to consumers) in December 2002. It added that the consumers are liable to pay these rates till 13 July 2003 to avoid disconnections. This modified order will continue till the matter is decided by the court and subject to the final outcome of the case hearing.

    The High Court order dated 7 March 2003 had led to a lot of confusion amongst the trade and different constituents had interpreted it differently (read Conflicting claims over Mumbai High Court ruling of 7 March).

  • Mumbai High Court postpones cable case to 18 June

    Mumbai High Court postpones cable case to 18 June

    MUMBAI: The trade was anxiously awaiting a decision but none was forthcoming. A division bench of the Mumbai High Court comprising Chief Justice CL Thakker and Dr Dhananjay Chandrachud today further postponed the crucial hearing of the “cable case” to 18 June 2003.
     

    Chaitanya D Mehta, representing the chief petitioner Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member of Parliament Kirit Somaiya and other politicians, opened proceedings by stating the original petition is not restricted merely to monthly cable charges payable by the consumer. Mehta stated that the other issues included disconnections, black outs by cable operators, incorrect disclosures and non payment of applicable taxes to the state and Central government.

    During the court room proceedings a lot of inconsistent statements were made by the assembled lawyers. For instance, Mehta read out the applicable sections which stated that the Union government was empowered to dictate the ceiling rate of the monthly cable charges. However, it is important to note that he was quoting from the recently amended Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2002 which empowers the government to determine the ceiling price of free-to-air (FTA) channels – and not the pay channels. Also, industry sources present in the court mentioned that some of these sections will only become applicable from 14 July 2003 when conditional access system (CAS) commences in the metropolitan cities.

    Mehta also appealed to the Lordships to postpone the hearing to 18 July as the Central government is supposed to ratify certain aspects of CAS by 17 July 2003 – three days after the implementation process commences!

    However, Mehta was bang on target when he raised the issue of compliance. He pointed out that there could be 2 million subscribers in the city of Mumbai but the statistics available with the government indicated the figure was in the region of 4,47,000. He also mentioned that the government should be earning revenues of Rs 60 million per month instead of the Rs 13 million that it is getting. He questioned as to why the state and central government enforcement authorities (excise department, income tax department officials and the legal authorities such as the police) had failed to enforce and interpret the laws correctly.

    Mehta wondered whether there was a nexus between the enforcement authorities and cable operators. He stated that the laws clearly said that cable operators must maintain a maintenance register in the prescribed form and produce (on demand by the enforcement authorities) information on all aspects of their business including the exact number of customers serviced.

    Mehta also quoted sub sections 3, 4A, 5 amongst others which empowered enforcement authorities to seize equipment of defaulting cable operators. He pointed out that the broadcasters had admitted (in their petition as well as in public statements) that only 25 per cent of the actual subscriber base was declared by the cable trade.

    This line of reasoning was seconded by Doordarshan / Prasar Bharati lawyer additional solicitor-general of Maharashtra SB Jaisinghani. Jaisinghani wondered as to why the enforcement authorities had failed to conduct a single raid on any cable operator till date. He appealed to the lordships to give the requisite instructions to the enforcement authorities.

    The lawyers of the cable operators raised the issue of the chief petitioner (BJP MP Somaiya) misguiding the general masses by wrongly informing them (through banners in public places) that the High Court order of 7 March included an injunction against raising cable charges. One of the lawyers representing respondent No 25 (cable distributor Sada Kadam) and Mumbai Cable Operators Federation lawyer AM Saraogi urged the lordships to clarify that they had not passed an injunction. They said that the “political gimmick” was affecting the day-to-day cable business.

    The lawyers representing the cable operators also stated that the consumers were taking recourse to the incorrect or partly correct interpretations made by the chief petitioners in their public communication and refraining from making monthly cable payments. They pointed out that petition of the chief petitioner mentioned that the broadcasters were charging Rs 240 per month for pay channels. They argued that the cable trade was willing to charge Rs 150 as long as the chief petitioner was willing to compensate the difference in amount.

    Meanwhile, MSO InCablenet lawyer Janak Dwarkadas again requested the Lordships to give their verdict as the broadcasters were cutting signals to the MSOs for non-payment of dues whereas the consumers refused to pay in lieu of the incorrect messages sent out by the chief petitioners and politicians.

    After the Lordships postponed the hearing to 18 June 2003, some of the assembled members of the cable trade mentioned that the case would drag on till July 2003 when CAS would come into effect.

    “There is no will to sort out the problem. However, it is a win-win situation for the politicians. Even if their petition is dismissed, later on, they can admit that they tried their best and score political brownie points. But, the trade will continue to suffer due to consumers refusing to pay and taking recourse to the campaign of the politicians. With the decision being postponed, we shall have to battle on in order to collect our rightful dues,” says a cable operator on condition on anonymity while speaking to indiantelevision.com.

  • Cable case hearing Wednesday

    Cable case hearing Wednesday

    MUMBAI: A division bench of the Mumbai High Court comprising Chief Justice CL Thakker and Dr Dhananjay Chandrachud today postponed the hearing of the “much hyped up” cable case to 2:45 pm tomorrow.

    Affected parties comprising of cable operators, multi-system operators (MSOs) politicians, broadcasters amongst others are hoping that the HC delivers its verdict tomorrow – exactly two and a half months before the conditional access system (CAS) gets implemented in metros (14 July 2003).

    Mumbai Cable Operators Federation (MCOF) lawyer AM Saraogi started off proceedings by submitting photographs of the banners displayed by one of the key petitioners Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) member of parliament Kirit Somaiya across Mumbai city. Saraogi stated that the banners wrongly mentioned that the HC had given a stay order to cable operators forbidding increase in cable charges. Saraogi argued that the consumers had been misguided and many of them refused to pay cable charges to the operators. This problem of poor receipts and collections percolated to all levels of the cable trade – from last mile operators to MSOs to broadcasters.

    BJP MP Somaiya’s lawyer CD Mehta then stated that he had not received the affidavit filed by lawyer Ahmad Abdi, Consumer Action Network (CAN) president. Abdi had paved the way for today’s hearing by producing evidence that cable related disconnections were happening throughout the city. Abdi wanted the chief justice to expedite the case in the best interests of the affected parties. Abdi also countered by saying that Mehta had not served relevant copies despite being one of the main petitioners.

    On hearing the arguments, chief justice Thakker and R Chandrachud agreed to grant time to the lawyers to complete the formalities and postponed the hearing to tomorrow.

    Await more action at Room no 52 of the Mumbai High Court as a multitude of lawyers representing 20-odd respondents/petitioners put forth different arguments to elicit a favourable judgement.

  • HC postpones cable case hearing to 23 April

    HC postpones cable case hearing to 23 April

    MUMBAI: It was some kind of an anticlimax considering the number of people who had assembled at the Mumbai High Court today!

    A division bench of the Mumbai High Court comprising chief justice CL Thakker and Dr DY Chandrachud will hear cable-related petitions on 23 April 2003. Till then, the previous ruling of 7 March 2003 will be applicable despite the fact that the lawyers of the MSOs (multi-system operators) protested that collections have dropped considerably due to the ruling.
     

    Several cable operators, MSO representatives, media and lawyers were eagerly waiting for the court to take up item number 17 in court no 46 of the Mumbai High Court. Lawyer Chaitanya Dhruve Mehta (of Dhruve Liladhar & Co) representing BJP MP (member of parliament) Kirit Somaiya’s group started the proceedings by saying that they needed time as three affected parties had filed their responses just yesterday.

    Mehta added that the involved parties needed more clarification on the fact that the government-piloted task force on conditional access is likely to recommend to the government a revised rate of Rs 71.33 (exclusive of taxes) as the price of the basic tier, which has the support of a majority of the panel members. The new figure had been put to vote in a task force meeting yesterday in New Delhi.

    While speaking to indiantelevision.com, Mehta says: “Prasar Bharati, Star India and Mumbai Cable Operators Federation (MCOF) president Nandan Basu filed their replies yesterday. We have sought time to study the responses before filing our replies. Also, we expect that the CAS task force will get a fix on the pricing of the free-to-air channels within a week. It would make sense to postpone the hearing till then.”

    When questioned about the previous order (dated 7 March), Mehta said that it was victory for the consumers who managed to see the cricket World Cup without any disruptions or blackouts by the cable operators.”The FTA price of Rs 71.3 plus taxes will work out below the range of Rs 150 per month per subscriber that Kirit Somaiya has been demanding. We shall strive to ensure that the rights of the consumers are protected!”

    Consumer Action Network president lawyer Ahmad M Abdi added: “Yesterday’s CAS task force recommendation is a new development and we welcome the price of Rs 71.33 per month per subscriber. We are also happy that the High Court has persisted with its earlier order prohibiting arbitrary disconnection. Ever since the hearing has begun, consumers have benefited a lot.”

    Maharashtra state government additional solicitor-general SB Jaisinghani, representing Doordarshan raised the point about the cable operators indulging in under-declarations. He also added that the government had already given the cable trade a time period of six months starting January 2003 to pave the way for CAS in July 2003.

    On 7 March, the court order had accepted one of the petitioner’s Seven Star cable’s undertaking that there would be no disconnection or stoppage of broadcasting of programmes except in individual cases of nonpayment of regular charges.

    However, the order stated that the above statement doesn’t prevent arguments on behalf of the MSOs. At that time, Seven Star officials claimed that the above mentioned statement is binding on all the MSOs (multi-system operators) in Mumbai.

    However, the counsels of the other MSOs had argued that the decision is binding only on Seven Star (which gave the undertaking) and not necessarily on the other MSOs. They also claim that the existing agreements between the cable operators and the MSOs are still valid. They also point out that Seven Star had already hiked its rates in late 2002 and the trade/consumers had protested against these rate hikes then. Today, lawyers representing MSOs stated that consumers were refusing to pay the new rates applicable from 1 January 2003 due to improper communication and false perceptions. They sought clarifications from the HC on this issue.

    The High Court ruling also directed the cable associations named respondents (Mumbai Cable Operators Federation – MCOF – amongst others) to avoid disconnection’s as the counsel for the petitioners had served notices and undertook the process of filing affidavit of services.

    The other cable associations in the city who are not affiliated to MCOF say that the HC ruling is not binding on them.

    All eyes will be on the final decision of the I&B ministry and the subsequent High Court hearing on 23 April 2003.