ITV

Tag: Delhi High Court

  • Ad cap & linked case put off to Sept; court to hear plea against stay order

    Ad cap & linked case put off to Sept; court to hear plea against stay order

    NEW DELHI: With no resolution in sight to the imbroglio relating to adcaps on television channels, the Delhi High Court has adjourned the hearing one more time, this time to September 29, 2016.

    The matter had earlier been put off on May 13, 2016 to today by chief justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath as they did not have time to hear the matter in view of part-heard cases.

    When the case comes up next, court is also expected to take up an application by intervenor Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

    In the hearing on March 29, 2016, a plea was made on behalf of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour.

    On May 13, 2016, the court had agreed to take up at the next hearing for vacation of stay. The court had on February 11, 2016 had also agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

    Earlier on November 27, 2105, the court chaired by the chief justice, had said the matter had been pending for some time and, therefore, it would hear and conclude the case in the next hearing. On that day, MIB had informed the court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour. This was the first time that the ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the NBA against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and others.

    The case, filed by NBA and others against TRAI and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

    The court has already directed that the order that TRAI would not take any action against any channel pending the petition would continue. In an earlier hearing, the court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

    The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamorus, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

    Meanwhile, the separate petition filed in the High Court by Vikki Choudhry and Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd., which too will be heard on the next date in September, seeks to charge MIB with dereliction of its duties to take action against offending pay TV broadcasters for violating the terms and conditions of the licenses/permission for Uplinking and Downlinking.

    The Court had in June asked the Ministry to file its reply in four weeks. Notice was issued only to the Ministry, although the petition also listed several other broadcasting companies as respondents.

    ALSO READ

    Ad cap case put off to 1 August, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    Ad cap case adjourned till 15 July

  • Ad cap & linked case put off to Sept; court to hear plea against stay order

    Ad cap & linked case put off to Sept; court to hear plea against stay order

    NEW DELHI: With no resolution in sight to the imbroglio relating to adcaps on television channels, the Delhi High Court has adjourned the hearing one more time, this time to September 29, 2016.

    The matter had earlier been put off on May 13, 2016 to today by chief justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath as they did not have time to hear the matter in view of part-heard cases.

    When the case comes up next, court is also expected to take up an application by intervenor Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

    In the hearing on March 29, 2016, a plea was made on behalf of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour.

    On May 13, 2016, the court had agreed to take up at the next hearing for vacation of stay. The court had on February 11, 2016 had also agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

    Earlier on November 27, 2105, the court chaired by the chief justice, had said the matter had been pending for some time and, therefore, it would hear and conclude the case in the next hearing. On that day, MIB had informed the court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour. This was the first time that the ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the NBA against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and others.

    The case, filed by NBA and others against TRAI and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

    The court has already directed that the order that TRAI would not take any action against any channel pending the petition would continue. In an earlier hearing, the court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

    The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamorus, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

    Meanwhile, the separate petition filed in the High Court by Vikki Choudhry and Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd., which too will be heard on the next date in September, seeks to charge MIB with dereliction of its duties to take action against offending pay TV broadcasters for violating the terms and conditions of the licenses/permission for Uplinking and Downlinking.

    The Court had in June asked the Ministry to file its reply in four weeks. Notice was issued only to the Ministry, although the petition also listed several other broadcasting companies as respondents.

    ALSO READ

    Ad cap case put off to 1 August, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    Ad cap case adjourned till 15 July

  • DAS Phase III cases caught up in a logjam courtesy Delhi High Court

    DAS Phase III cases caught up in a logjam courtesy Delhi High Court

    NEW DELHI: With the Delhi High Court yet to decide on the date of hearing all cases seeking extension of Phase III of digital addressable system passed on to it by the Supreme Court, two more cases – before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal – have been put off again.

    Petitions by the Rohtak Cable Operator Association, Haryana, and Rewari Cable Operators Association against Siti Cable Networks have been put off to 11 August by member B B Srivastava.

    In the previous hearing on 6 May 2016, the cases had been put off in view of their pendency before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

    However, the Tribunal said that in view of the directive by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that SitiCable will not interfere with the operators continuing to transmit in analogue, the previous order of 6 May 2016 of the Tribunal will continue.

    In its order on 11 July 2016, the Tribunal noted the statement by counsel for the cable operator organizations that the matter was now being transferred to the Delhi High Court after the order of the Supreme Court but “is yet to be listed.”

    But the Tribunal said the LCOs will continue to pay the monthly subscription fee as per the previous agreement and on thebasis of invoices raised by the respondent in order to receive signals.

    The registry of the Supreme Court has sent to all the concerned High Courts the directive of the apex court of 1 April for transfer of all cases seeking extension to digital addressable system for cable television to Delhi High Court with a view to avoid conflicting decisions.’

    A copy of the order was also sent to the Delhi High Court and it was now up to that Court to fix a date, Supreme Court officials said.

    The officials said that the attempt would be to first receive from the various High Courts the papers relating to the petitions, which almost all had pleaded shortage of set top boxes for seeking extension or stay of DAS which became effective 1 January 2016.

    The apex court had accepted the plea of the Central Government that ‘it would be just and proper for this Court to withdraw allthose cases pending in different High Courts and transfer the same to the Delhi High Court.’

    Ironically, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had on 12 January 2016 written to its counsel in Punjab and Hryana High Court that it had understood the Hyderabad order to mean a pan India stay while asking him to defend the case.

    But later, the Ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one High Court gives a stay, another High Court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the High Court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

    Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.

    The last DAS Task Force meeting on 30 May 2016 was informed that a total of 42 court cases have been filed for extension in the deadline of Phase lll in various courts in the country with the two-month extension by the Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Courts. Other Courts followed suit in the ground that this order was extendable to other areas. This led to the Centre moving the Supreme Court which passed an order of transfer of all cases for extension filed in various courts and any new cases on similar prayer to the Delhi High Court for adjudication.

    The meeting was also told 17 cases had been transferred by various courts to the Delhi High Court out of which the High Court had dismissed three cases and another three cases were being heard that same day.

  • DAS Phase III cases caught up in a logjam courtesy Delhi High Court

    DAS Phase III cases caught up in a logjam courtesy Delhi High Court

    NEW DELHI: With the Delhi High Court yet to decide on the date of hearing all cases seeking extension of Phase III of digital addressable system passed on to it by the Supreme Court, two more cases – before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal – have been put off again.

    Petitions by the Rohtak Cable Operator Association, Haryana, and Rewari Cable Operators Association against Siti Cable Networks have been put off to 11 August by member B B Srivastava.

    In the previous hearing on 6 May 2016, the cases had been put off in view of their pendency before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

    However, the Tribunal said that in view of the directive by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that SitiCable will not interfere with the operators continuing to transmit in analogue, the previous order of 6 May 2016 of the Tribunal will continue.

    In its order on 11 July 2016, the Tribunal noted the statement by counsel for the cable operator organizations that the matter was now being transferred to the Delhi High Court after the order of the Supreme Court but “is yet to be listed.”

    But the Tribunal said the LCOs will continue to pay the monthly subscription fee as per the previous agreement and on thebasis of invoices raised by the respondent in order to receive signals.

    The registry of the Supreme Court has sent to all the concerned High Courts the directive of the apex court of 1 April for transfer of all cases seeking extension to digital addressable system for cable television to Delhi High Court with a view to avoid conflicting decisions.’

    A copy of the order was also sent to the Delhi High Court and it was now up to that Court to fix a date, Supreme Court officials said.

    The officials said that the attempt would be to first receive from the various High Courts the papers relating to the petitions, which almost all had pleaded shortage of set top boxes for seeking extension or stay of DAS which became effective 1 January 2016.

    The apex court had accepted the plea of the Central Government that ‘it would be just and proper for this Court to withdraw allthose cases pending in different High Courts and transfer the same to the Delhi High Court.’

    Ironically, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had on 12 January 2016 written to its counsel in Punjab and Hryana High Court that it had understood the Hyderabad order to mean a pan India stay while asking him to defend the case.

    But later, the Ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one High Court gives a stay, another High Court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the High Court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

    Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.

    The last DAS Task Force meeting on 30 May 2016 was informed that a total of 42 court cases have been filed for extension in the deadline of Phase lll in various courts in the country with the two-month extension by the Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Courts. Other Courts followed suit in the ground that this order was extendable to other areas. This led to the Centre moving the Supreme Court which passed an order of transfer of all cases for extension filed in various courts and any new cases on similar prayer to the Delhi High Court for adjudication.

    The meeting was also told 17 cases had been transferred by various courts to the Delhi High Court out of which the High Court had dismissed three cases and another three cases were being heard that same day.

  • Delhi HC directs Stracon India to pay Rs 7.31 crore to DD for Sharjah Cup 1999

    Delhi HC directs Stracon India to pay Rs 7.31 crore to DD for Sharjah Cup 1999

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has affirmed that Stracon India Ltd owes a sum of Rs 7.31 crore to Prasar Bharati towards revenue earned for the Sharjah Cup 1999 between India and Pakistan.

    Although an arbitrator had announced an award and a single judge had given a decision, the matter came before a division bench because of an appeal by Stracon India.

    Dismissing the appeal, Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Mukta Gupta in their order of 14 March 2016 made available to indiantelevision.com today noted that: “If the learned Arbitrator who authored the award dated 14 March 2014 or the learned Single Judge who has pronounced the decision dated 1 October 2014 had been clear in their reasoning, a simple issue would not have seen so complicated.”

    The Court noted that the Arbitrator had awarded Rs 7.31 crores. However, the judges regretted that the Arbitrator had not done the simple analysis of the pleadings but “left the award with the pleadings being simply noted”.

    The Court said: “In this context it assumes importance that the appellant had issued cheque No.945977 on 20 May 1999 in sum of Rs 7.31 crores which was dishonoured when Prasar Bharati presented the same for realization”.

    Prasar Bharati and Stracon India had entered into an agreement on 5 June 1997 whereby Stracon became the accredited agent for Prasar Bharati concerning Doordarshan Commercial Service. Stracon was to be paid commission of 15 percent. It had a credit facility of between 45 days to 60 days. Indo-Pak one day test series was to be held between 7 April and 16 April 1999 in Sharjah, popularly known as the Sharjah Cup. Pertaining to the Sharjah Cup, an agreement of 22 January 1999 having therein an arbitration clause was executed between the parties.

    But the World Cup had to be held in May of the same year. Another party, Nimbus, obtained an order in its favour from the Bombay High Court in this regard.

    However by that time, certain amounts realized by Stracon concerning the World Cup from advertisers had been credited in an account maintained with Canara Bank, the benefit whereof was taken by Prasar Bharati together with the liabilities concerning the amounts. Amounts realized by Stracon from the Sharjah Cup and expenses incurred were credited and debited in the same account. In other words, amounts relating to both the World Cup and the Sharjah Cup were credited in the same account and amounts paid out were debited in the same account.

    When the matter went for arbitration, Prasar Bharati claimed Rs 7,52,44,234 as the licence fee, Rs 3,33,50,000 towards withholding tax, Rs 3,48,16,159 towards revenue sharing, and Rs 3,56,01,813 towards opportunity cost as relating to the Sharjah Cup.

    The Arbitrator award rejected the later three claims on account of no proof. Thus, the Delhi High Court only confined its order to the sum of Rs 7,31,00,000. In any case, even Prasar Bharati counsel Rajeev Sharma conceded that any claim pertaining to the World Cup could not be the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings.

    The bank statement also showed that a sum of Rs 26,75,45,007 was realized by the appellant from third parties and the expenses are admittedly Rs 34,27,89,241 and even counsel on both sides did not dispute the correctness of the statement of account.

    The court said this meant that “one has to simply bifurcate the amounts concerning the World Cup and the Sharjah Cup and ignore the amounts concerning the World Cup and focus only on the amounts concerning the Sharjah Cup.”

    Prasar Bharati claimed that the deposits Rs 12,54,00,000 was for the World Cup and thus for the Sharjah event the amount would be Rs 14,21,45,007 after deducting the World Cup amount from the total of Rs 26,75,45,007. The outgoing for the Sharjah event was Rs 21,52,52,641 and this would mean the amount payable to Prasar Bharati is Rs 7,31,07,634 after deducting the sum of Rs 14,21,45,007 from Rs 21,52,52,641.

    But the court said: “It is trite that of various kinds of admissions made by a party, the strongest admission against a party is the one made in a pleading.

    The Court said: “There is a clear admission of the pleadings in first paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim. As regards the second paragraph, the denial is vague and has to be treated as an admission because we do not find anything in the preliminary submissions wherefrom it can be deduced that as per the appellant it denied the bifurcation as pleaded by the respondent in the second paragraph numbered as 11 in the Statement of Claim.”

    The judgment said this admission is fortified from the pleading in paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim and its corresponding reply filed by the appellant. Thus, it is apparent that there is an admission of Rs 14,21,45,007 being towards the Sharjah event.

    The court said: “The evasive denial means as admission of the fact pleaded in para 15 of the Statement of Claim that the total outgoing for the Sharjah event was Rs 21,52,52,641. If this be so, the destination is apparent. Deduct Rs 14,21,45,007 from said amount and we have the figure Rs 7,31,07,634.”

    On the subject of limitation, the court said “we concur with the view taken by the learned Arbitrator that as long as the parties discussed the issue and till when a clear denial of the liability came from the mouth of the appellant limitation would not commence.”

  • Delhi HC directs Stracon India to pay Rs 7.31 crore to DD for Sharjah Cup 1999

    Delhi HC directs Stracon India to pay Rs 7.31 crore to DD for Sharjah Cup 1999

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has affirmed that Stracon India Ltd owes a sum of Rs 7.31 crore to Prasar Bharati towards revenue earned for the Sharjah Cup 1999 between India and Pakistan.

    Although an arbitrator had announced an award and a single judge had given a decision, the matter came before a division bench because of an appeal by Stracon India.

    Dismissing the appeal, Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Mukta Gupta in their order of 14 March 2016 made available to indiantelevision.com today noted that: “If the learned Arbitrator who authored the award dated 14 March 2014 or the learned Single Judge who has pronounced the decision dated 1 October 2014 had been clear in their reasoning, a simple issue would not have seen so complicated.”

    The Court noted that the Arbitrator had awarded Rs 7.31 crores. However, the judges regretted that the Arbitrator had not done the simple analysis of the pleadings but “left the award with the pleadings being simply noted”.

    The Court said: “In this context it assumes importance that the appellant had issued cheque No.945977 on 20 May 1999 in sum of Rs 7.31 crores which was dishonoured when Prasar Bharati presented the same for realization”.

    Prasar Bharati and Stracon India had entered into an agreement on 5 June 1997 whereby Stracon became the accredited agent for Prasar Bharati concerning Doordarshan Commercial Service. Stracon was to be paid commission of 15 percent. It had a credit facility of between 45 days to 60 days. Indo-Pak one day test series was to be held between 7 April and 16 April 1999 in Sharjah, popularly known as the Sharjah Cup. Pertaining to the Sharjah Cup, an agreement of 22 January 1999 having therein an arbitration clause was executed between the parties.

    But the World Cup had to be held in May of the same year. Another party, Nimbus, obtained an order in its favour from the Bombay High Court in this regard.

    However by that time, certain amounts realized by Stracon concerning the World Cup from advertisers had been credited in an account maintained with Canara Bank, the benefit whereof was taken by Prasar Bharati together with the liabilities concerning the amounts. Amounts realized by Stracon from the Sharjah Cup and expenses incurred were credited and debited in the same account. In other words, amounts relating to both the World Cup and the Sharjah Cup were credited in the same account and amounts paid out were debited in the same account.

    When the matter went for arbitration, Prasar Bharati claimed Rs 7,52,44,234 as the licence fee, Rs 3,33,50,000 towards withholding tax, Rs 3,48,16,159 towards revenue sharing, and Rs 3,56,01,813 towards opportunity cost as relating to the Sharjah Cup.

    The Arbitrator award rejected the later three claims on account of no proof. Thus, the Delhi High Court only confined its order to the sum of Rs 7,31,00,000. In any case, even Prasar Bharati counsel Rajeev Sharma conceded that any claim pertaining to the World Cup could not be the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings.

    The bank statement also showed that a sum of Rs 26,75,45,007 was realized by the appellant from third parties and the expenses are admittedly Rs 34,27,89,241 and even counsel on both sides did not dispute the correctness of the statement of account.

    The court said this meant that “one has to simply bifurcate the amounts concerning the World Cup and the Sharjah Cup and ignore the amounts concerning the World Cup and focus only on the amounts concerning the Sharjah Cup.”

    Prasar Bharati claimed that the deposits Rs 12,54,00,000 was for the World Cup and thus for the Sharjah event the amount would be Rs 14,21,45,007 after deducting the World Cup amount from the total of Rs 26,75,45,007. The outgoing for the Sharjah event was Rs 21,52,52,641 and this would mean the amount payable to Prasar Bharati is Rs 7,31,07,634 after deducting the sum of Rs 14,21,45,007 from Rs 21,52,52,641.

    But the court said: “It is trite that of various kinds of admissions made by a party, the strongest admission against a party is the one made in a pleading.

    The Court said: “There is a clear admission of the pleadings in first paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim. As regards the second paragraph, the denial is vague and has to be treated as an admission because we do not find anything in the preliminary submissions wherefrom it can be deduced that as per the appellant it denied the bifurcation as pleaded by the respondent in the second paragraph numbered as 11 in the Statement of Claim.”

    The judgment said this admission is fortified from the pleading in paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim and its corresponding reply filed by the appellant. Thus, it is apparent that there is an admission of Rs 14,21,45,007 being towards the Sharjah event.

    The court said: “The evasive denial means as admission of the fact pleaded in para 15 of the Statement of Claim that the total outgoing for the Sharjah event was Rs 21,52,52,641. If this be so, the destination is apparent. Deduct Rs 14,21,45,007 from said amount and we have the figure Rs 7,31,07,634.”

    On the subject of limitation, the court said “we concur with the view taken by the learned Arbitrator that as long as the parties discussed the issue and till when a clear denial of the liability came from the mouth of the appellant limitation would not commence.”

  • SC rejects Star appeal on sharing sports signals with DD

    SC rejects Star appeal on sharing sports signals with DD

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today upheld the contention by Prasar Bharati that enhancements embedded in the sports feed shared by sports channels with Doordarshan were commercial advertisements.

    Rejecting a special leave petition by Star India against a Delhi High Court order which had gone in favour of Prasar Bharati, The apex Court also held that the prohibition in Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act 2007 (Sports Act) is not only against advertisements of the broadcast service provider but also those of the content rights owner and holder.

    The Court said the word ‘its’ in Section 3 of the Act refers to the the content rights owners, holder and broadcast service provider. Therefore it was immaterial as to who inserted the enhancements. Under the Act the signal to be provided had to be free of advertisements.

    The Sports Act is clear that live signals of sporting events of national importance have to be shared by the content rights owners or holders and broadcast service providers with Prasar Bharati without advertisements. Furthermore, a clean feed is to be provided.

    Prasar Bharati in its petition in the High Court had claimed that the feed being provided contained commercial enhancements. But Star took the plea that the commercial enhancements were not advertisements and the enhancements were in any case being inserted by International Cricket Council.

    Star also said the prohibition in Section 3 of the Sports Act was only against advertisements of the broadcast service provider (Star) and not those of the content rights owner (ICC). It claimed that the word ‘its’ in Section 3 of the Act only referred to the broadcast service provider and not the content rights owner.

    While senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi had appeared for Star Sports, Prasar Bharati was represented by Attorney General Mukul Rohatagi.

    Taking up the case in Febuary last year, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Prafulla C Pant had said ‘we are of the view that the interim order passed earlier to the effect that the impugned order dated 4 February of the High Court shall remain suspended should continue until further orders.’

    The Court had at that time said it was ‘not inclined’ to consider the suggestion made by Star Sports that Doordarshan should set up an extra/special channel which has been contended by Prasar Bharati to be unviable and technically unfeasible within any reasonable period of time.

    On the second suggestion about ‘putting up a scroll to the effect that ‘the channel displaying the sports event (concerned ICC World Cup 2015 matches) is meant only for Doordarshan’, the Court said ‘acceptance of the said suggestion would be understanding the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Act 2007 and Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 in a particular manner which is not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. We, therefore, decline to accept the said second suggestion advanced on behalf of the respondents.’

    Star India had in an additional affidavit at the time said that it was losing around Rs 290 crore every year by sharing its sports signals with Doordarshan and was expecting to lose around Rs 120 crore by sharing the telecast of the World Cup this year. (Under the Sports Act, the rights holder gets 75 per cent of the revenue from the telecast on DD which keeps the balance 25 per cent.)

    The Delhi High Court had declined to set aside the must carry clause as well as the Sports Act in its judgment.

  • SC rejects Star appeal on sharing sports signals with DD

    SC rejects Star appeal on sharing sports signals with DD

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today upheld the contention by Prasar Bharati that enhancements embedded in the sports feed shared by sports channels with Doordarshan were commercial advertisements.

    Rejecting a special leave petition by Star India against a Delhi High Court order which had gone in favour of Prasar Bharati, The apex Court also held that the prohibition in Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act 2007 (Sports Act) is not only against advertisements of the broadcast service provider but also those of the content rights owner and holder.

    The Court said the word ‘its’ in Section 3 of the Act refers to the the content rights owners, holder and broadcast service provider. Therefore it was immaterial as to who inserted the enhancements. Under the Act the signal to be provided had to be free of advertisements.

    The Sports Act is clear that live signals of sporting events of national importance have to be shared by the content rights owners or holders and broadcast service providers with Prasar Bharati without advertisements. Furthermore, a clean feed is to be provided.

    Prasar Bharati in its petition in the High Court had claimed that the feed being provided contained commercial enhancements. But Star took the plea that the commercial enhancements were not advertisements and the enhancements were in any case being inserted by International Cricket Council.

    Star also said the prohibition in Section 3 of the Sports Act was only against advertisements of the broadcast service provider (Star) and not those of the content rights owner (ICC). It claimed that the word ‘its’ in Section 3 of the Act only referred to the broadcast service provider and not the content rights owner.

    While senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi had appeared for Star Sports, Prasar Bharati was represented by Attorney General Mukul Rohatagi.

    Taking up the case in Febuary last year, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Prafulla C Pant had said ‘we are of the view that the interim order passed earlier to the effect that the impugned order dated 4 February of the High Court shall remain suspended should continue until further orders.’

    The Court had at that time said it was ‘not inclined’ to consider the suggestion made by Star Sports that Doordarshan should set up an extra/special channel which has been contended by Prasar Bharati to be unviable and technically unfeasible within any reasonable period of time.

    On the second suggestion about ‘putting up a scroll to the effect that ‘the channel displaying the sports event (concerned ICC World Cup 2015 matches) is meant only for Doordarshan’, the Court said ‘acceptance of the said suggestion would be understanding the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Act 2007 and Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 in a particular manner which is not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. We, therefore, decline to accept the said second suggestion advanced on behalf of the respondents.’

    Star India had in an additional affidavit at the time said that it was losing around Rs 290 crore every year by sharing its sports signals with Doordarshan and was expecting to lose around Rs 120 crore by sharing the telecast of the World Cup this year. (Under the Sports Act, the rights holder gets 75 per cent of the revenue from the telecast on DD which keeps the balance 25 per cent.)

    The Delhi High Court had declined to set aside the must carry clause as well as the Sports Act in its judgment.

  • Ad cap case put off to 13 May, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    Ad cap case put off to 13 May, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    NEW DELHI: The ad cap case by television channels continues to linger on, with the Delhi High Court once again putting off the hearing to 13 May when it will hear an application by intervenor Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

    The matter was put off by chief justice G Rohini and justice Jayant Nath as they did not have time to hear the matter in view of urgent cases. In the last hearing on 29 March, a plea was made on behalf of the Information and Broadcasting ministry that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour.

    However counsel Vivek Sarin of Home Cable counsel pressed for early hearing of his application for vacation of stay. Thereupon, counsel for Discovery Communications said it wanted to press its application to come in as intervenor. The court had on 11 February adjourned the hearing to today when it had agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

    Earlier on 27 November last year, the court chaired by the chief justice had said the matter had been pending for some time and therefore it would hear and conclude the case in the next hearing. On that day, the I and B Ministry had informed the Court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour. This was the first time that the ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the News Broadcasters and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others.

    Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd had been permitted to intervene on 5 January and the Court had agreed to consider contentions on whether pay channels should be permitted to carry commercials in view of subscription fee charged by them. Home Cable Counsel Vivek Sarin had told the court that the petitioners had not disclosed that broadcasters had given their consent to observe the 10+2 ad cap rule under the Cable Television Network Regulation Rules 1994 and the Act that followed a year later and also under the Uplink and Downlink Guidelines. He also said pay TV broadcasters should not be allowed to take ads as they charged subscription fee.

    The case, filed by News Broadcasters Association and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

    The court has already directed that the order that TRAI would not take any action against any channel pending the petition would continue. In an earlier hearing, the court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

    The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamoru, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

    Meanwhille, complaints against fifteen broadcasters by TRAI on the ad cap issue are also pending with the chief metropolitan magistrate in Delhi.

  • Ad cap case put off to 13 May, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    Ad cap case put off to 13 May, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    NEW DELHI: The ad cap case by television channels continues to linger on, with the Delhi High Court once again putting off the hearing to 13 May when it will hear an application by intervenor Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

    The matter was put off by chief justice G Rohini and justice Jayant Nath as they did not have time to hear the matter in view of urgent cases. In the last hearing on 29 March, a plea was made on behalf of the Information and Broadcasting ministry that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour.

    However counsel Vivek Sarin of Home Cable counsel pressed for early hearing of his application for vacation of stay. Thereupon, counsel for Discovery Communications said it wanted to press its application to come in as intervenor. The court had on 11 February adjourned the hearing to today when it had agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

    Earlier on 27 November last year, the court chaired by the chief justice had said the matter had been pending for some time and therefore it would hear and conclude the case in the next hearing. On that day, the I and B Ministry had informed the Court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour. This was the first time that the ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the News Broadcasters and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others.

    Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd had been permitted to intervene on 5 January and the Court had agreed to consider contentions on whether pay channels should be permitted to carry commercials in view of subscription fee charged by them. Home Cable Counsel Vivek Sarin had told the court that the petitioners had not disclosed that broadcasters had given their consent to observe the 10+2 ad cap rule under the Cable Television Network Regulation Rules 1994 and the Act that followed a year later and also under the Uplink and Downlink Guidelines. He also said pay TV broadcasters should not be allowed to take ads as they charged subscription fee.

    The case, filed by News Broadcasters Association and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

    The court has already directed that the order that TRAI would not take any action against any channel pending the petition would continue. In an earlier hearing, the court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

    The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamoru, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

    Meanwhille, complaints against fifteen broadcasters by TRAI on the ad cap issue are also pending with the chief metropolitan magistrate in Delhi.