ITV

Tag: dispute

  • No coercive action against Disney Star: Bombay HC to CCI

    No coercive action against Disney Star: Bombay HC to CCI

    Mumbai: The Bombay high court has directed the Competition Commission of India (CCI) not to take coercive action against three broadcasters – Asianet Star Communications, Disney Broadcasting (India), and Star India in furtherance of an order initiating investigation against such companies. A bench of justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar passed the judgement, according to Bar and Bench report on Friday.

    The court also directed the petitioners to furnish to the director general of CCI the documentary material called for in response to the queries in furtherance of the order, on a without prejudice and no-equities basis.

    The director general was also ordered to keep the information collected by him confidential as required by law until the next hearing date.

    The bench passed the order in writ petitions filed by the three petitioners challenging an order of CCI passed on 28 February directing its director general to initiate investigation under Section 26 of the Competition Act based on a complaint by Asianet Network Digital.

    Asianet is in the business of distribution of TV channels to customers through local cable operators predominantly in Kerala. It had contended in its complaint that broadcasters such as the petitioners, must not have discriminatory pricing in commercial contracts with multi-service operators (MSOs) such as Asianet.

    In the complaint, Asianet referred to the regulations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) and the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), which prohibits discriminatory in commercial contracts with MSOs.  

    Asianet stated that the petitioners, by abusing their position of dominance, provided significant discounts to a direct competitor through allied agreements that apparently offered a cashback system. The petitioners intended to bypass the Trai/TDSAT set-caps or upper limits with an intent to provide unfair advantage to Asianet’s competitors.

    In view of this, CCI ordered the director general to conduct an investigation and submit a report within 60 days. The same was challenged before the high court.  

  • Zeel-Invesco tussle: We have never resorted to any hostile transactions, says Reliance

    Zeel-Invesco tussle: We have never resorted to any hostile transactions, says Reliance

    Mumbai: Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) has released a statement after being embroiled in the Zeel-Invesco dispute on Wednesday. The company said that it has never resorted to “hostile transactions” and noted that reports in the media are not accurate.

    Reliance Industries became entangled in the tussle between Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (Zeel), and their investor Invesco Developing Markets Fund, after the latter revealed that Reliance was the “Strategic Group” that was looking to merge its media business with Zeel earlier this year in February-March.  

    As per the proposal, 40 per cent of the merged entity would belong to existing shareholders while 60 per cent would be controlled by RIL. Furthermore, the promoter family would retain its existing 3.99 per cent stake in the merged entity.

    According to the statement, Invesco assisted Reliance in arranging discussions directly between their representatives and Punit Goenka who is a member of the founding family and managing director of Zeel.

    Reliance had made a broad proposal for the merger of their media properties with Zeel. “The valuations of Zee and our media properties were arrived at based on the same parameters. The proposal sought to harness the strengths of all the merging entities and would have helped to create substantial value for all, including shareholders of Zee,” the company said.

    Reliance confirmed that the proposal included the continuation of managing director Punit Goenka and the issue of ESOPs to management including Goenka. “Reliance always endeavours to continue with the existing management of the investee companies and reward them for their performance,” it said.

    The fallout of the deal was attributed to differences between Goenka and Invesco with respect to a requirement of the founding family for increasing their stake by subscribing to preferential warrants. Invesco held the view that the founders could always increase their stake through market purchases.

    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 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 the ministry of information and broadcasting (I&B).

    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.”

    On 22 September, Zeel and Sony Pictures Networks India announced that they have signed a non-binding term sheet to merge the media assets of both companies. However, Invesco has raised concerns regarding aspects of the deal that allow the promoter family to increase their stake from 3.99 per cent to 20 per cent and has demanded that additional details of the proposed merger be furnished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • TDSAT asks Star India to not disconnect signals to Siti Cable for Mumbai

    TDSAT asks Star India to not disconnect signals to Siti Cable for Mumbai

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed broadcaster Star India to cancel its disconnection notice to Siti Cable Network after the multi-system operator (MSO) handed over a cheque of Rs 10 crore for settlement of the payment dispute pending mutual negotiations. 

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam said, “We hope and trust that the two sides will be able to resolve their disputes through negotiations; in case any issues survive, those will be adjudicated by the Tribunal.” 

     

    The matter, if not resolved, will be listed for 5 February. Star India has been given two weeks to reply to the petition. 

     

    Star India had claimed that Siti Cable was in arrears of Rs 26 crore, which was disputed by the MSO. However, the MSO did admit there were some arrears. 

     

    Counsel Meet Malhotra for Siti Cable said his client would submit within two days the information required by Star India on its indicating “on an email to the petitioner, the materials, including the SMS reports that it wishes from the petitioner.”

     

    Star India counsel Salman Khurshid had also alleged that Siti Cable was indulging in piracy in as much as it is taking its signals outside the area covered by the interconnect agreement. Malhotra did not deny the fact that his client was retransmitting the signals to certain suburbs of Mumbai, which fall outside the area of the agreement but submitted that the petitioner had duly informed the respondent on the very day it started retransmitting the signals outside Mumbai and in any event, all the subscribers viewing the respondent’s channels whether within the area of the agreement or outside the area of agreement, will be recorded in its SMS and will be duly reflected in the SMS reports.

  • Dispute deepens between Star India and Hathway

    Dispute deepens between Star India and Hathway

    MUMBAI: The case is up for a long hearing, with no resolution coming out soon. Star India and Hathway Cable & Datacom have emerged from another round of the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) hearing with just another date in their hand.

     

    While the earlier interim order still applies, the broadcaster feels that there is an issue of under declaration of subscriber numbers. Earlier last week, Hathway had submitted to Star, its subscriber management system (SMS) report for April to July which according to sources is an average of 4.4 million.

     

    However, a Star India executive informs that it wasn’t satisfied with the declaration and had filed a clarification application regarding number of active subscribers. To this, Hathway responded today in TDSAT that the declared numbers were indeed active subscribers. The MSO had also responded to the application that it had already furnished the required SMS report, post which the broadcaster withdrew it.

     

    Hathway had paid Rs 26.5 crore for DAS I areas of Mumbai and Delhi, DAS areas of Kolkata and DAS II areas. However, the Star executive feels that the MSO has omitted the subscribers of its sports packs and the amount paid should be higher.

     

    “We have now given the details to our auditor to evaluate and then we will be raising invoices on the same,” says the executive.

     

    The case has now been postponed to another date.