ITV

Tag: Gopal Jain

  • Gujarat High Court accepts plea against TRAI NTO 2.0 amendments

    Gujarat High Court accepts plea against TRAI NTO 2.0 amendments

    MUMBAI: The empire strikes back even as TRAI has been rubbishing news that NTO 2.0  is detrimental to the industry and will put the brakes on it. Despite repeated representations from different bodies, TRAI is sticking to its guns on imposing pricing regulations. Now the industry is fighting back.

    A spate of cases has been filled in different courts in a bid to turn TRAI and the government to its point of view. Earlier broadcasters have appealed at the Bombay and Madras High Courts and now they have filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court. Sources say that a few more petitions will be filed in different courts.

    The Gujarat High Court accepted a petition filed by broadcasters challenging the new tariff order for the broadcast sector by TRAI. Hearing the petition, Justice AY Kogje of the Ahmedabad bench of the Gujarat High Court issued notices to the Union of India and TRAI, asking them to file replies by 3 February, failing which the high court would grant interim relief to the petitioners.

    Petitioners named Somabhai Makwana, Nidhi Jani, Bharat Thakore, and Falguni Shah in their petition have stated that the tariff order issued by the regulatory body is beyond the powers under Section 11(2) of the TRAI Act and is conflicting with the provisions of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

    On 1 January this year, TRAI had issued amendments to its tariff order for the broadcast sector, which received huge criticism from broadcasters and distribution operators alike.

    According to the petitioners, fixation of the network capacity fee (NCF) of Rs 130 per month per subscriber is not based on any intelligible material, and the criteria for determining the proposed amount lacks transparency.

    The case is ongoing in the Bombay High Court as well. In the previous hearing held on 14 January, the Bombay HC bench consisting of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice RI Chagla had directed TRAI to file a reply in one week. They, in fact, had also refused to put a stay on the amendments pertaining to the new regulatory framework.

    Key amendments proposed by the broadcasters include the reduction of MRP cap to Rs 12, implementation of twin conditions on bouquet pricing, and other being the discount on channel bouquets to around 33 per cent.

    Earlier, Sun TV Network moved Madras High Court challenging the amendments to the new regulatory framework. The case  will be heard on 4 February. Hearing the matter, the division bench of Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad also issued notices to the Union of India and TRAI.

  • Neo Sports to give live feed to DD for 17 Feb ODI; no action against Nimbus

    Neo Sports to give live feed to DD for 17 Feb ODI; no action against Nimbus

    NEW DELHI: Following an assurance that it was prepared to give live feed to Prasar Bharati and action against it was unwarranted, Nimbus was today directed by the Delhi High Court to provide live feed for the cricket match between India and Sri Lanka to be played on 17 February in Visakhapatnam.

    The bench comprising Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice JP Singh passed the order after Nimbus counsel Gopal Jain mentioned the matter before the bench seeking protection against the showcause notice issued by the information and broadcasting ministry alleging there had been violation of the provisions of the Sports Broadcasting (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Ordinance 2007.
    Nimbus wanted the court to direct the Centre not to take action against it as it had offered to provide live feed of the match to the Prasar Bharati. Under the ordinance, the licence given to Neo Sports owned by Nimbus can be suspended.

    The court directed the government not to take any decision or action till 9 March, the next date of hearing.

    The court also issued notices to the Centre and Prasar Bharati on a petition filed by Nimbus challenging the ordinance, which makes it mandatory for private broadcaster to share live feed with the pubcaster.

    Earlier in the day, Nimbus had approached another Bench of the Delhi High Court presided over by Justice BD Ahmed seeking protection from the Centre’s threat to cancel its licence if it did not respond to the government’s show cause notice by today.

    However, Justice Ahmed had said then that the broadcaster should raise the issue before the Division Bench that was already hearing two cases on the issue – Nimbus’ challenge of the ordinance and the appeal by Prasar Bharati against a single bench’s order permitting a seven-minute deferred telecast of the cricket matches.

  • HC hearing on Nimbus challenge to telecast ordinance on 12 February

    HC hearing on Nimbus challenge to telecast ordinance on 12 February

    NEW DELHI: Even as the Delhi High Court today refused to stay the operation of the ordinance promulgated last week making it mandatory for private sports channels to share live feed of any international sports event with Prasar Bharati, the telecast controversy is coming up for hearing in two different benches of the court on 12 February.

    Justice BD Sharma, who is hearing the appeal by Prasar Bharati against an earlier order of the court permitting seven-minute deferred telecast on Doordarshan, rejected the plea by Nimbus Communications, owner of Neo Sports, seeking a stay on the Ordinance.

    Nimbus informed the Court that it had filed a petition in the court of a division bench headed by Chief Justice MK Sarma challenging the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Ordinance and that court had fixed the matter for Monday.

    The Counsel for Nimbus Gopal Jain informed the division bench headed by Chief Justice MK Sarma that Neo Sports was challenging the ordinance, as it was arbitrary and unconstitutional.

    The private sports broadcast channel also contended that the Ordinance violates its fundamental right under Article 19 (1) that is rights to speech and expression and its intellectual property right.

    (Mr Justice Ahmed had yesterday questioned the Government’s reasoning in promulgating the Ordinance saying, ”The Rule of Law should not have been subverted,” even as the government said it would challenge any court order favouring Nimbus’ insistence on deferred telecast. Justice B D Ahmed had wanted to know why the government was so swift in bringing an ordinance and added that the whole thing left a bad taste in the mouth.).