ITV

Tag: Delhi HC

  • Netflix original ‘Sacred Games’ gets entangled in legalities

    Netflix original ‘Sacred Games’ gets entangled in legalities

    MUMBAI: Even as Netflix’s Sacred Games gets entangled in legal tangle, media reports suggested MIB is mulling content guidelines for web series, as per a report by Republic TV.

    Media reports also stated that the health ministry is upset that web series on OTT platforms don’t run the scroll relating to dangers of tobacco and alcohol when such substances are shown being consumed by characters. Such messages appear in films and most TV serials.

    Within a few days of its release, Netflix’s first Indian original Sacred Games has got into legal trouble. According to a Press Trust of India report, the Delhi High Court will hear a plea against the series on 16 July which sought removal of certain scenes. Some of its content has been claimed as inappropriate and derogatory in nature.

    The division bench, comprising Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar before whom the matter came up, said it would go through the petition and CD. The allegation against the series is that certain scenes and dialogues in the show defame former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

    The show allegedly “incorrectly depicts historical events of the country like Bofors case, Shah Bano case, Babri Masjid case and communal riots”. Petitioner advocate Nikhil Bhalla filed the plea through advocate Shashank Garg.

    The petitioners have asked through the plea to direct Netflix and the producer of the show Phantom Films to remove the alleged scenes as well as centre to ensure the act.

    Netflix finally started streaming its much-hyped first Indian original series last week starring Saif Ali Khan, Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Radhika Apte.

  • Arnab Goswami is free to report on Sunanda Pushkar case

    Arnab Goswami is free to report on Sunanda Pushkar case

    MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court on Friday refrained from issuing any interim order restraining journalist and editor Arnab Goswami and his channel Republic TV from airing news or debate in connection with Shashi Tharoor’s wife Sunanda Pushkar’s death case. 

    As the case was sub-judice, Republic TV CEO Vikas Khanchandani chose not to comment on the latest order while talking to Indiantelevision.com

    Pushkar was found dead in a South Delhi five-star hotel on the night of 17 January, 2014. The matter is being investigated.

    Earlier, in May-end, the Delhi HC had sent a notice to Goswami asking him to avoid rhetoric in the story in the Tharoor’s defamation plea. Justice Manmohan had then observed: “You cannot call him names. That is uncalled-for.”

    While the channel was then careful in how it reported about the case, a senior advocate, appearing for Tharoor, said some Republic TV reporters were not taking the same care while tweeting. 
    The Lok Sabha MP had filed a civil defamation suit against Goswami and the channel, seeking damages and compensation of Rs 20 million.
    Now, a day ago, Justice Manmohan issued a notice to Goswami and the channel seeking their responses on Tharoor’s plea to restrain them from allegedly misreporting the contents of court proceedings in Pushkar case. The court said the subject needed detailed hearing and, only then, a detailed verdict could be given.

    The judge now stated the Congress leader had not shown any law by which investigation could be done by the journalist/editor. “Show me that after the first date of hearing (29 May), he (Goswami) has called you a murderer,” the judge said, adding: “I cannot dictate what should be the editorial policy of a news channel.” “Certainly, the public surely has the right to know what has happened in the case. The police has not even filed a chargesheet for last three and half years,” the judge said. 

    Tharoor, who was second in the race to become the UN secretary-general, had alleged that, after the last date of hearing on 16 August, the journalist/editor and his channel continued to indulge in misreporting and had broadcast an eight-hour programme on 4 September related to his wife’s death.

    The politician had also sought direction to the channel and its editor that they should not mention the expression “murder of Sunanda Pushkar” anywhere, since it is yet to be established by a competent court whether her death was “murder.”

    Tharoor, in the petition earlier, had stated: “It is not out of place to say that Goswami and the TV channel broadcast news reports and ‘alleged expose’ which were intended to lead the viewers to believe that the deceased was murdered either by Tharoor or at his instance.”

    Also Read:

    Republic TV & Pushkar’s kin restrained, hearing on 21 Sept

    Arnab Goswami told to respect Tharoor’s right, Delhi HC hearing on 16 Aug

    Shashi Tharoor files defamation case against Arnab Goswami’s Republic

  • TRAI QoS implementation stayed by Delhi HC awaiting Madras HC verdict

    TRAI QoS implementation stayed by Delhi HC awaiting Madras HC verdict

    MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court has stayed TRAI’s QoS regulations till the time the Madras High Court gives its judgement in TRAI tariff order case.

    Earlier, joining issues with a petition being heard by the Supreme Court on a similar matter, the Madras High Court had, three weeks ago, directed the federal government to clarify on the existing regulatory setup governing contents aired by television channels in India. The Supreme Court is hearing a similar case and has enquired from the central government whether it had a proper mechanism in place to regulate TV content.

    Prior to that, the Madras HC had, on 31 July, reserved orders on the Star India-Vijay TV challenge to the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders.  The court received a compliance report from its registry that all parties had filed their written submissions.

    In the most recent development, the Delhi High Court bench, comprising acting chief justice Gita Mittal and justice C Hari Shankar, stated that it would wait for the verdict of the Madras High Court in relation to the tariff order dispute before deciding on the prayers of Tata Sky and Bharti Telemedia. Till that time, the implementation of TRAI tariff order, interconnect regulations and QoS (quality of service) and  consumer protection regulations would not be effected.

    The two companies had questioned the validity of the QoS.

    ALSO READ :

    Star India-TRAI jurisdiction case to come up in Madras HC today

    Govt rules out TV channel categorisation (updated)

    TRAI can only regulate transmission, not broadcast material: Star tells Mds HC

    SC stays new TRAI tariff, asks Madras HC to complete hearing in four weeks

  • Delhi HC rules in favour of Sun TV chief Maran

    MUMBAI: In a civil suit filed by south Indian media baron and Sun Group chief Kalanithi Maran and his airline firm Kal Airways, the Delhi High Court dismissed the plea of SpiceJet against a single-judge order that directed it to deposit Rs 579 crore in relation to a share transfer conflict. Sources told Financial Express that SpiceJet will move the Supreme Court against the HC order.

    The petitioner had sought issuance of stock warrants in SpiceJet to them as per a sale purchase agreement (SPA) of 2015 which had led to the transfer of ownership of the budget carrier to SpiceJet promoter Ajay Singh. The single bench’s order had been pronounced last year on the ivil suit filed by Maran and Kal Airways, the erstwhile owner of SpiceJet, PTI reported.

    The high court on Monday asked SpiceJet to deposit in court a part of the amount in the form of bank guarantee by July-end, and the remainder to be paid in cash by August end.

    Maran and Kal had charged that despite giving Rs 579 crore to SpiceJet, the carrier had failed to issue them the warrants or allot tranche one and two of Convertible Redeemable Preference Shares and that the funds were not utilised for paying statutory dues owing to which they were also facing prosecution.

    Singh had co-founded SpiceJet in 2005, but sold his majority stake to Maran for Rs 750 crore in 2010. But, when the carrier ran into trouble, Singh came on board by acquiring 58 per cent stake from Marans in January 2015.

    A division bench headed by justice S Ravindra Bhat stated: “Although we do not find merit in the appeal and have dismissed it, we have passed an order modifying the impugned order,” adding “there is nothing worthwhile” in the airline’s plea to show its finances were precarious or that its cash position was so stretched that it cannot comply with a single-judge order to deposit the amount. “There is neither reference to any figure or amount, nor reliance on any balance sheet, nor even the income and expenditure statement of the company, to say that compliance with the impugned order would irreparably injure it.”

    “The court notices that the nearly 18 month pendency of this appeal, and the non-compliance with the impugned order (of single judge), has aggrandised the appellant (SpiceJet), which was to have the benefit of the amounts. “If there were any difficulties, this interregnum period would have helped it considerably tide over its affairs and certainly afforded time to organise it better and in a more orderly fashion to comply with the order,” the bench said while dismissing the appeals.

  • Delhi HC notice to Goswami, asks for avoiding rhetoric in Tharoor-Sunanda story

    NEW DELHI: Even as it asked him to avoid rhetoric in his reports, the Delhi High Court today issued notice to Republic TV and Arnab Goswami over the Congress leader Shashi Tharoor’s defamation plea.

    Fixing the next date of hearing to 16 August, Justice Manmohan observed: “Bring down the rhetoric. You can put out your story. You can put out the facts. You cannot call him names. That is uncalled for.”

    Lok Sabha MP Tharoor had filed a civil defamation suit late last week against Goswami and the TV channel, seeking damages and compensation of Rs 20 million for allegedly making defamatory remarks against him during a news broadcast related to the death of his wife Sunanda Pushkar.

    The lawsuit filed through advocates Muhammad Ali Khan and Gaurav Gupta claimed that the recordings were released in a sensational manner and created a ‘non-existing controversy’ by maligning Tharoor’s public life and image.

    The petition said, “It is not out of place to say that Goswami and the TV channel broadcast news reports and ‘alleged expose’ which were intended to lead the viewers to believe that the deceased was murdered either by Tharoor or at his instance. Such a broadcast ‘clearly has the potential of adversely impacting the ongoing investigation into the death of the deceased’,” the plea said.

    Tharoor said Goswami had earlier aired similar news when he was the editor-in-chief with another TV news channel (Times Now), which was restrained by the National Broadcasting Standards Authority.

    The Congress MP also said the police was investigating the matter and had also registered an FIR. “It is pertinent to mention that the Delhi Police took statements from a number of people, including him,” the suit said. It also stated that during the probe not a single allegation has been made by the investigating authorities against the MP.

  • Delhi HC refuses to entertain injunction sought by Times group against Republic TV

    MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court today refused to entertain an injunction sought by the Times Group in a case filed by it against Republic TV on issues related to IPR on audio tapes aired by the latter. The court has set dates for further hearing in the case. This is according to information shared with indiantelevision.com by sources close to Republic TV. 

    Reacting to the development, a Republic TV spokesperson told Indiantelevision.com that while the court has set a date for hearing on the same matter six weeks from now, it has also urged the Times of India group to refrain from reporting on the matter.

    We reached out to Times TV Network CEO MK Anand for his organisation’s point of view but there was no response till the time of writing this report.

    The court had yesterday allegedly refused to put a stay on BARC’s  ratings of Republic TV from being published as requested by the India Today group.

    Earlier, the court had asked the Times group as to why the Sunanda Pushkar and Lalu Prasad audio tapes were not used despite them being in the possession of Times Now.

    Keep tuned in for more on this saga

    Also Read:

    Delhi HC notice to Arnab Goswami on ‘theft’ suit by Times group 

    Being a ‘cry baby’ won’t help Times Group, says Republic TV’s Arnab Goswami

    IPR case: HC issues summons to Republic TV, hearing on 26 May

  • Tata Sky & Airtel DTH pleas against TRAI tariff in Delhi HC on Friday

    NEW DELHI: The petition by direct-to-home platform Tata Sky challenging the Tariff and the Reference Interconnect Order regulations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is slated for hearing in the Delhi High Court tomorrow (Friday).

    The petition seeks an order not only for setting aside these regulations, but also categorising some sub-sections of Section 11 of the TRAI Act 1997 as being violative of the Indian Constitution. Another petition by Airtel Digital, which has been filed seeking similar similar reliefs, may also be heard along with the Tata Sky petition. 

    The Tata Sky petition has been filed on behalf of the d2H platform and the Tata Sky CFO S Ganesan. The respondents are both, TRAI and the Union of India.

    Indiantelevision.com had earlier reported that the primary problem with the new tariff order arises from the fact that all stakeholders will have to abide by the rates fixed by the broadcaster.

    The DTH players are agitated not only with the fact that they pay over 85% of the service tax and entertainment tax in the digitised universe, but the fact that their liberty to make their own bouquets may be taken away with the broadcasters having the say in fixing rates for individual channels.

    Tata Sky CEO Harit Nagpal had earlier confirmed to indiantelevision.com that it was moving the Delhi High Court against TRAI on the tariff order. As it is one of the largest among the six private DTH operators, the approximately Rs 50-billion Tata Sky may be joined by other players.

    Tata Sky had designed packages as per genre so as to make it smoother for the customer but may now have to change these bouquets/bundles as the new order directs the DTH operators to offer channels on an à la carte basis and then link them to the bouquet price.

    There are several conditions in the new order as to how the channels could be priced in a bunch, and individually, Nagpal said. If one aspires that consumers are going to use an app and order a channel that may not take place in the Rs 58000-crore television industry.

    TRAI had first come out with a draft tariff order in October 2016 but was embroiled in the case in Madras High Court which had initially directed status quo. Later, TRAI had issued the orders on 3 March after getting the green signal from the apex court even as the broadcasters’ case was pending in the High Court.

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    Meanwhile in another matter pending before the Madras High Court where Star India and Vijay TV have challenged the regulations under the Copyright Act on the ground that content does not fall under TRAI jurisdiction, the Supreme Court on 8 May stayed the operation of the regulations but asked the High Court to dispose of the case within four weeks.

    Also read:

    After Star, Tata Sky all set to challenge TRAI tariff: Harit Nagpal

    SC stays new TRAI tariff, asks Madras HC to complete hearing in four weeks

  • Don’t compete with Den Enjoy, Delhi HC restrains two MSOs

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has restrained Omeshwar Singh and UCS Broadband Company from “commencing any business which directly competes with the business” of M/s Den Enjoy Cable Networks Private Limited till the next date of hearing.

    Justice Vibhu Bakhru also ‘directed’ Den Enjoy to “take the necessary steps to invoke the Arbitration Clause.”

    While issuing notice to the respondents and listed the matter for 11 May 2017, the respondents were asked to file their reply within two weeks, and a rejoinder if any could be filed within a week thereafter.

    The Court, in its order of 21 March 2017, also noted that “it appears that Omeshwar Singh is attempting to avoid his contractual obligations by using the corporate façade of UCS Broadband Company for improper purpose.”

    However, the Court also said this was only “prima facie view at an ad interim stage, and would not preclude the respondent from raising all contentions which would be considered at a later stage.”

    (Earlier, on 11 March 2017, the Court had “dismissed as withdrawn” a petition on this issue after Den Enjoy sought liberty to withdraw, and file a fresh petition.)

    Den Enjoy had filed the case against Singh for engaging in competing business in complete disregard of the non-compete terms of the Share Subscription Agreement. It was alleged that Singh, through his company UCS Broadband, not only obtained / applied for Digital Access permission but also approached cable operators of Den Enjoy and broadcasters for content.

    Omeshwar Singh is a founder shareholder, and had been Den’s agent from Lucknow. He presently holds 16.33 per cent shareholding in Den Enjoy.

    Omeshwar Singh’s counsel Vineet Bhagat had made an appearance as a result of a caveat filed by him through his counsel apprehending such a petition. The Court noted his argument that Section 27 of the Contract Act was clear that pre-compete condition was void and against the law. Bhagat said enforcement of any no-competition clause would amount to creation of a monopoly. He also argued that the agreement between Den Enjoy and the respondents was only related to Lucknow.

    Den Enjoy Cable Networks Pvt. Ltd. is a joint venture company (JVC) of Den Networks Ltd. The company is engaged in the business of providing cable television services in Lucknow.

    Den Enjoy, in a press release issued later, also said the order had come after its counsel Arun Kathpalia submitted that Singh is a director and one of the major shareholders of the company, and drew attention of the court to the clause 24 (non-compete) of the Share Subscription Agreement reached between the company and shareholders of the company.

    However, Singh told indiantelevision.com that he had resigned from UCS Broadband Company on 30 July last year and even sold his shareholding in October 2016.

    Singh also claimed that UCS was not using his Lucknow residential premises as its office, though the judge had noted that respondent’s counsel had not disputed this fact in Court. He said that he been living at different premises since April 2012.

    Meanwhile, a UCS Broadband official informed indiantelevision.com that it has already obtained a licence to operate in Tanda in District Ambedkar Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) which falls under DAS Phase IV.

  • PVR Ltd: HC nod to two subsidiaries’ merger with parent

    PVR Ltd: HC nod to two subsidiaries’ merger with parent

    MUMBAI: PVR Ltd has informed the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange that the Delhi High Court, vide the formal Order issued on 4 January, 2017, has approved the Scheme of Amalgamation entailing merger of PVR Leisure Limited and Lettuce Entertain You Limited with PVR Limited effective from the appointed date of 1 April, 2015.

    Justice Siddharth Mridul approved the scheme of amalgamation under which PVR Leisure Ltd — which operates in-mall entertainment, food and gaming joints, and Lettuce Entertain You Ltd — which is into the business of operating restaurants items — would merge with PVR Ltd, their parent company, PTI reported.

    In its directive approving the merger, the HC has stated that all the property, rights and powers of the two transferor companies shall be transferred to the transferee company.

    Under the scheme, the court also stated, “the entire paid-up equity and non-cumulative convertible preference share capital of petitioner company No.2 (PVR Leisure) is held by the transferee company directly, and the entire paid-up equity share capital of petitioner company No.1 (Lettuce) is held by transferee company through its wholly owned subsidiary PVR Leisure.”

    Also Read:

    Films Division shorts in cinema halls: Centre mulling revival

  • PVR Ltd: HC nod to two subsidiaries’ merger with parent

    PVR Ltd: HC nod to two subsidiaries’ merger with parent

    MUMBAI: PVR Ltd has informed the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange that the Delhi High Court, vide the formal Order issued on 4 January, 2017, has approved the Scheme of Amalgamation entailing merger of PVR Leisure Limited and Lettuce Entertain You Limited with PVR Limited effective from the appointed date of 1 April, 2015.

    Justice Siddharth Mridul approved the scheme of amalgamation under which PVR Leisure Ltd — which operates in-mall entertainment, food and gaming joints, and Lettuce Entertain You Ltd — which is into the business of operating restaurants items — would merge with PVR Ltd, their parent company, PTI reported.

    In its directive approving the merger, the HC has stated that all the property, rights and powers of the two transferor companies shall be transferred to the transferee company.

    Under the scheme, the court also stated, “the entire paid-up equity and non-cumulative convertible preference share capital of petitioner company No.2 (PVR Leisure) is held by the transferee company directly, and the entire paid-up equity share capital of petitioner company No.1 (Lettuce) is held by transferee company through its wholly owned subsidiary PVR Leisure.”

    Also Read:

    Films Division shorts in cinema halls: Centre mulling revival