ITV

Tag: Justice Aftab Alam

  • TDSAT appoints committee to recover dues from Mahua

    TDSAT appoints committee to recover dues from Mahua

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed for the setting up of a committee comprising representative of five decree holders and a representative of Mahua Media Private Ltd to improve and strengthen the affairs of the broadcaster and to promote its finances so as to enable it to gradually and in a time-bound manner fully satisfy the five decrees amounting to Rs 33,44,50,344.

    A 16-point order of 14 June 2016 by Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava noted that the decree holders are DEN, Digi Cable, Wire& Wireless India Ltd, Indian Cable Net Co, and Tata Sky. Mahua as the judgment debtor will be represented by P K Tiwari.

    The execution proceedings against Mahua commenced with the filing of the Execution Application on behalf of DEN on 15 January 2014. Later on, the other four decree holders joined in the proceedings with their respective execution applications filed on different dates, leading to a consolidated proceeding against Mahua on behalf of all the five decreeholders. P K  Tiwari, the Managing Director of  Mahua,  after his release from custody on the basis of an order passed by the Bombay  High Court first appeared in person before the Tribunal in connection with the present proceedings on 19 March 2015. Since then, he has filed several affidavits undertaking to pay the decretal amounts to the five decree holders following highly deferred schemes of payment. No payment, however, has been made to any decree holder in terms of the undertakings given by him.

    The Tribunal observed that: “In hindsight it appears that the affidavits were filed with a view to delude the Tribunal and to somehow delay the discharge of the decrees: there was no intention to make any payments to the decree holders.” The Tribunal also said that Tiwari had “persistently” breached the undertaking on oath taken following the order of the Tribunal in February last year.  

    The Tribunal also noted that Tiwari made deliberate misrepresentation of facts and tried to suppress some relevant facts from the Tribunal regarding the bank accounts of Mahua and the money received on its behalf from advertisements and other sources even during the current proceedings.

    The Tribunal on 30 May 2016 proposed to proceed in terms of 51(d) CPC and expressed the intent to appoint a receiver in the form of a committee comprising one representative from each the decree   holders. The decree holders accepted the suggestion “without demur”.

    The committee has been appointed Receiver in terms of section 51(d) of the Civil Procedure Code. It will hold its first meeting within 15 days from the date of the order.   

    The convenor for the first meeting will be the representative of Tata Sky, the decretal amount in whose favour far exceeds the decrees in favour of the other creditors. The convenor shall fix the date, time and the venue of the meeting taking into account the convenience of all concerned.

    In the first  meeting of the committee,  Tiwari will make a full and complete disclosure of all the immovable, movable, tangible and intangible assets of Mahua, all its bank accounts [other than account nos. O109102000036810 (lOBI Bank), 11921900000231 (DCB Bank), and 200999454000 (Induslnd Bank)], all the details relating to its business, all the sources of its revenue, its liabilities and the expenses being incurred by it. In case Mahua has or gets any receipts in cash (as evidenced from its three bank accounts), Tiwari will make full disclosure of the same to the committee which will take control of the cash receipts which shall be appropriated for no purpose other than the legitimate business interests of Mahua.

    The committee will then take full and effective and physical control of the offices and records of Mahua, all its immovable, movable, tangible and intangible assets including its business as a broadcaster of television channels subject to any orders passed by a court or any lawful authority in respect of the Mahua assets or its running business.

    All the decisions by the committee will be taken by majority vote with every member, including Tiwari entitled to one vote. The committee will maintain a minute book of its   meetings. The committee in its first  meeting will also frame the rules of procedure for exercise of authority of management over the affairs of Mahua as directed, keeping in mind its object and purpose·.

    In furtherance of its object and purpose, the committee shall take decisions and do all acts aimed at improving the business of Mahua a nd enhancing its finances. The committee will take all administrative as well as business decisions concerning the affairs of Mahua. For removal of any doubt, it was made clear by the Tribunal that the committee is fullyauthorized to negotiate with third parties, enter into business arrangements with third parties and execute agreements on behalf of Mahua with any third parties. It will also beopen to the committee to act through smaller sub-committees with appropriate delegation of its powers as per the rules of procedure framed by it.

    The committee may, if it so decides, appoint a chartered accountant/auditor to audit  the financial affairs of Mahua including all its transactions with ‘related/sister companies’, for example Pragya Vision Pvt Ltd.,  for the past three years with a specific mandate  and view to take note of and report on monies that might have been defalcated/misappropriated/siphoned off by the Directors of Mahua either by themselves or in concert or collusion with Directors/Stakeholders in related companies not excluding Pragya Vision.

    The committee will not act, directly or indirectly, in derogation of or contrary to any order concerning Mahua made by a court or any lawful authority and will not alienate or encumber any immovable or movable properties of Mahua without the prior permission of the Tribunal.

    Any cheques on behalf of Mahua shall continue to be issued under the signature of   Tiwari but from this date no cheque will be signed by Tiwari unless it has the sanction in any special or general decision by the committee. Any cheque signed by Tiwari from this date without the sanction of the committee’s decision would be invalid and make Tiwari liable for the consequences, including the breach of the Tribunal order.

    The committee will submit a financial report before the Tribunal by the fifteenth day of the expiry of each financial quarter.

    It will be open to the committee to approach the Tribunal for any clarification or permission or instructions or directions on any specific issue.

    Any challenge to the decision of the committee by any third party or any dispute a rising from an agreement executed by the committee on behalf of Mahua with any third party shall be an action against Mahua or a dispute between Mahua and the concerned third party and shall be defended/prosecuted on behalf of Mahua by the committee and allexpenses in that connection shall be debited from Mahua’s accounts.

    The formation of the Committee and its appointment as Receiver does not in any way discharge the five decrees in question and the rights of the decree holders against Mahua under their respective decrees shall remain subsisting until the decrees are fully satisfied in accordance with law.

    (Justice Alam’s term as Chairman has since ended and no successor has so far been announced. TDSAT is at present closed for summer but can hear urgent or important matters that come up for preliminary hearing).

  • TDSAT appoints committee to recover dues from Mahua

    TDSAT appoints committee to recover dues from Mahua

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed for the setting up of a committee comprising representative of five decree holders and a representative of Mahua Media Private Ltd to improve and strengthen the affairs of the broadcaster and to promote its finances so as to enable it to gradually and in a time-bound manner fully satisfy the five decrees amounting to Rs 33,44,50,344.

    A 16-point order of 14 June 2016 by Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava noted that the decree holders are DEN, Digi Cable, Wire& Wireless India Ltd, Indian Cable Net Co, and Tata Sky. Mahua as the judgment debtor will be represented by P K Tiwari.

    The execution proceedings against Mahua commenced with the filing of the Execution Application on behalf of DEN on 15 January 2014. Later on, the other four decree holders joined in the proceedings with their respective execution applications filed on different dates, leading to a consolidated proceeding against Mahua on behalf of all the five decreeholders. P K  Tiwari, the Managing Director of  Mahua,  after his release from custody on the basis of an order passed by the Bombay  High Court first appeared in person before the Tribunal in connection with the present proceedings on 19 March 2015. Since then, he has filed several affidavits undertaking to pay the decretal amounts to the five decree holders following highly deferred schemes of payment. No payment, however, has been made to any decree holder in terms of the undertakings given by him.

    The Tribunal observed that: “In hindsight it appears that the affidavits were filed with a view to delude the Tribunal and to somehow delay the discharge of the decrees: there was no intention to make any payments to the decree holders.” The Tribunal also said that Tiwari had “persistently” breached the undertaking on oath taken following the order of the Tribunal in February last year.  

    The Tribunal also noted that Tiwari made deliberate misrepresentation of facts and tried to suppress some relevant facts from the Tribunal regarding the bank accounts of Mahua and the money received on its behalf from advertisements and other sources even during the current proceedings.

    The Tribunal on 30 May 2016 proposed to proceed in terms of 51(d) CPC and expressed the intent to appoint a receiver in the form of a committee comprising one representative from each the decree   holders. The decree holders accepted the suggestion “without demur”.

    The committee has been appointed Receiver in terms of section 51(d) of the Civil Procedure Code. It will hold its first meeting within 15 days from the date of the order.   

    The convenor for the first meeting will be the representative of Tata Sky, the decretal amount in whose favour far exceeds the decrees in favour of the other creditors. The convenor shall fix the date, time and the venue of the meeting taking into account the convenience of all concerned.

    In the first  meeting of the committee,  Tiwari will make a full and complete disclosure of all the immovable, movable, tangible and intangible assets of Mahua, all its bank accounts [other than account nos. O109102000036810 (lOBI Bank), 11921900000231 (DCB Bank), and 200999454000 (Induslnd Bank)], all the details relating to its business, all the sources of its revenue, its liabilities and the expenses being incurred by it. In case Mahua has or gets any receipts in cash (as evidenced from its three bank accounts), Tiwari will make full disclosure of the same to the committee which will take control of the cash receipts which shall be appropriated for no purpose other than the legitimate business interests of Mahua.

    The committee will then take full and effective and physical control of the offices and records of Mahua, all its immovable, movable, tangible and intangible assets including its business as a broadcaster of television channels subject to any orders passed by a court or any lawful authority in respect of the Mahua assets or its running business.

    All the decisions by the committee will be taken by majority vote with every member, including Tiwari entitled to one vote. The committee will maintain a minute book of its   meetings. The committee in its first  meeting will also frame the rules of procedure for exercise of authority of management over the affairs of Mahua as directed, keeping in mind its object and purpose·.

    In furtherance of its object and purpose, the committee shall take decisions and do all acts aimed at improving the business of Mahua a nd enhancing its finances. The committee will take all administrative as well as business decisions concerning the affairs of Mahua. For removal of any doubt, it was made clear by the Tribunal that the committee is fullyauthorized to negotiate with third parties, enter into business arrangements with third parties and execute agreements on behalf of Mahua with any third parties. It will also beopen to the committee to act through smaller sub-committees with appropriate delegation of its powers as per the rules of procedure framed by it.

    The committee may, if it so decides, appoint a chartered accountant/auditor to audit  the financial affairs of Mahua including all its transactions with ‘related/sister companies’, for example Pragya Vision Pvt Ltd.,  for the past three years with a specific mandate  and view to take note of and report on monies that might have been defalcated/misappropriated/siphoned off by the Directors of Mahua either by themselves or in concert or collusion with Directors/Stakeholders in related companies not excluding Pragya Vision.

    The committee will not act, directly or indirectly, in derogation of or contrary to any order concerning Mahua made by a court or any lawful authority and will not alienate or encumber any immovable or movable properties of Mahua without the prior permission of the Tribunal.

    Any cheques on behalf of Mahua shall continue to be issued under the signature of   Tiwari but from this date no cheque will be signed by Tiwari unless it has the sanction in any special or general decision by the committee. Any cheque signed by Tiwari from this date without the sanction of the committee’s decision would be invalid and make Tiwari liable for the consequences, including the breach of the Tribunal order.

    The committee will submit a financial report before the Tribunal by the fifteenth day of the expiry of each financial quarter.

    It will be open to the committee to approach the Tribunal for any clarification or permission or instructions or directions on any specific issue.

    Any challenge to the decision of the committee by any third party or any dispute a rising from an agreement executed by the committee on behalf of Mahua with any third party shall be an action against Mahua or a dispute between Mahua and the concerned third party and shall be defended/prosecuted on behalf of Mahua by the committee and allexpenses in that connection shall be debited from Mahua’s accounts.

    The formation of the Committee and its appointment as Receiver does not in any way discharge the five decrees in question and the rights of the decree holders against Mahua under their respective decrees shall remain subsisting until the decrees are fully satisfied in accordance with law.

    (Justice Alam’s term as Chairman has since ended and no successor has so far been announced. TDSAT is at present closed for summer but can hear urgent or important matters that come up for preliminary hearing).

  • Final Hearing matters may be affected till Alam’s successor is found in TDSAT

    Final Hearing matters may be affected till Alam’s successor is found in TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: Justice Aftab Alam, who has chaired the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal for the past three years, is laying down office in just under a week – but has made sure that work is not affected till a successor is appointed.

    With the other member Kuldip Singh retired at the end of March, the tribunal now only has Justice Alam who retires on 16 June and member Bipin Behari Srivastava.

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 2000 clearly stipulates that the Chairman has to be either a former or sitting Supreme Court judge or a sitting or retired Chief Justice of a High Court.

    The selection of the chairman and a maximum of two members has to be made by the central government, and Department of Telecom sources have confirmed that the process has been initiated by the Communication and Information Technology ministry.

    But perhaps keeping in view the time that may elapse before his successor is found, Justice Aftab Alam had on 26 May issued a notice re-constituting work allocation.

    The chairperson said that with effect from 1 June, there will be two benches in TDSAT: the first will have the chairperson and one member, while Bench Two will have ‘Member/Members’.

    He also made clear that Bench two will deal with matters listed for ‘preliminary hearing, directions, and for orders for passing interim orders only.’  This bench may also dispose of cases where a settlement is arrived at either bilaterally or through the Mediation Centre of the tribunal.

    However, while TDSAT will not come to a standstill and will continue to hear new matters and also pass interim orders, this will affect those cases which have been listed for final arguments. These include cases such as the definition of adjusted gross revenue, the direct-to-home arrears case, and the matter relating to digital cable addressable tariffs for commercial establishments like hotels etc.

    Justice Alam directed that this arrangement – issued by him under Section 14B (4)(b) and 14B(5) read with Section 14-1 of the TRAI Act – will continue until further orders.   

  • Final Hearing matters may be affected till Alam’s successor is found in TDSAT

    Final Hearing matters may be affected till Alam’s successor is found in TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: Justice Aftab Alam, who has chaired the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal for the past three years, is laying down office in just under a week – but has made sure that work is not affected till a successor is appointed.

    With the other member Kuldip Singh retired at the end of March, the tribunal now only has Justice Alam who retires on 16 June and member Bipin Behari Srivastava.

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 2000 clearly stipulates that the Chairman has to be either a former or sitting Supreme Court judge or a sitting or retired Chief Justice of a High Court.

    The selection of the chairman and a maximum of two members has to be made by the central government, and Department of Telecom sources have confirmed that the process has been initiated by the Communication and Information Technology ministry.

    But perhaps keeping in view the time that may elapse before his successor is found, Justice Aftab Alam had on 26 May issued a notice re-constituting work allocation.

    The chairperson said that with effect from 1 June, there will be two benches in TDSAT: the first will have the chairperson and one member, while Bench Two will have ‘Member/Members’.

    He also made clear that Bench two will deal with matters listed for ‘preliminary hearing, directions, and for orders for passing interim orders only.’  This bench may also dispose of cases where a settlement is arrived at either bilaterally or through the Mediation Centre of the tribunal.

    However, while TDSAT will not come to a standstill and will continue to hear new matters and also pass interim orders, this will affect those cases which have been listed for final arguments. These include cases such as the definition of adjusted gross revenue, the direct-to-home arrears case, and the matter relating to digital cable addressable tariffs for commercial establishments like hotels etc.

    Justice Alam directed that this arrangement – issued by him under Section 14B (4)(b) and 14B(5) read with Section 14-1 of the TRAI Act – will continue until further orders.   

  • TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has agreed to hear a review application by the Mumbai multi system operator (MSO) Home Systems Pvt Ltd on the report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd (BECIL) relating to a case between the petitioner and Star India.

    However, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said that Home Systems must make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order. 

    The payment will be subject to the final result of the review application, the Tribunal said while fixing the date for 4 March. 

    In its order, the Tribunal noted that, “Through the device of this review application, a fresh hearing is practically sought to be made on Home System’s objection to the BECIL reports.”

    Though the Tribunal saw no reason to alter or modify its order of 21 January, it accepted the plea by Home Systems counsel J K Mehta to get more instructions in the matter. Mehta also stated that Hone Systems was willing to make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order “but it would not like to carry the stigma of the Tribunal’s observation that its operations were in contravention of statutory norms.” 

    While noting that it was not averse to hearing Mehta further “as we will not like any injustice to be caused by our order as the petitioner appears to be highly concerned about its credibility,” the Tribunal expressed the hope that BECIL counsel Rajiv Sharma would also be presented in the next hearing along with the author of the supplementary report of BECIL of 6 November last.

  • TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has agreed to hear a review application by the Mumbai multi system operator (MSO) Home Systems Pvt Ltd on the report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd (BECIL) relating to a case between the petitioner and Star India.

    However, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said that Home Systems must make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order. 

    The payment will be subject to the final result of the review application, the Tribunal said while fixing the date for 4 March. 

    In its order, the Tribunal noted that, “Through the device of this review application, a fresh hearing is practically sought to be made on Home System’s objection to the BECIL reports.”

    Though the Tribunal saw no reason to alter or modify its order of 21 January, it accepted the plea by Home Systems counsel J K Mehta to get more instructions in the matter. Mehta also stated that Hone Systems was willing to make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order “but it would not like to carry the stigma of the Tribunal’s observation that its operations were in contravention of statutory norms.” 

    While noting that it was not averse to hearing Mehta further “as we will not like any injustice to be caused by our order as the petitioner appears to be highly concerned about its credibility,” the Tribunal expressed the hope that BECIL counsel Rajiv Sharma would also be presented in the next hearing along with the author of the supplementary report of BECIL of 6 November last.

  • Exchange of letters for reaching a pact or partial payment doesn’t amount to formal agreement: TDSAT

    Exchange of letters for reaching a pact or partial payment doesn’t amount to formal agreement: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: Rejecting a petition by Asianet Satellite Communication, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has noted that a payment made by Sathyadhara Communications “purely as a goodwill gesture and in the hope of reaching an agreement” cannot be taken to mean that the parties had reached any agreement or Satyadhara had given any approval for the same.

    Referring to one of the main disputes, which was about placement of certain channels, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said, “The primary reason why broadcasters pay for placement of their channels is to popularise them. Revenue to the broadcasters comes from two streams, which are subscription fees, and advertisements. The channels having more viewership command more subscription fees as well as revenue from advertisements. It is for this reason that when channels are relatively new, broadcasters pay for their placement. Naturally, they want their channels to be placed with existing popular channels of a similar genre. For example, if an entertainment channel is placed near some religious channels, it is not likely to be visible to the viewers looking for an entertainment channel. Even when a viewer is surfing different channels, the channels in earlier slots are more likely to be viewed than those in the later slots. It is for this reason that both the slot and the neighbourhood in which a channel is placed becomes important for a broadcaster.”

    The Tribunal said as seen from the facts of this case, this was the major reason why an agreement was not reached between the parties.

    The petition had been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs 1.30 crore allegedly payable by Sathyadhara towards balance of carriage fees for the year 2012-13. A further sum of Rs 20.47 lakh had also been claimed as interest at 18 per cent p.a. for the delay in payment of the carriage fees.

    Asianet is operating both as a multi system operator (MSO) and a local cable operator (LCO) in Kerala. It distributes signals of various TV channels directly, as well as through other cable operators, to individual subscribers. Satyadhara is a broadcaster, which runs Darshana TV.

    A carriage agreement dated 8 August, 2011 was signed between the parties and was valid for one year from 1 September, 2011 to 31 August, 2012. Under this, Asianet was to carry and retransmit signals of Darshana TV. For the carriage of this channel, Sathyadhara was to pay an amount of Rs 60 lakh per year exclusive of taxes for the period of the agreement. This agreement or the payment under it are not in dispute.

    The dispute pertains to a period starting from 1 September, 2012 till the disconnection of carriage of signals by Sathyadhara on 20 November, 2013. Asianet has claimed that both parties wanted to continue the agreement even after the expiry on 31 August, 2012.

    The Tribunal took note of the exchange of letters between the parties to come to a formal agreement and particularly about the placement of Sathyadhara’s channel but said this did not mean that any agreement had been reached.

    TDSAT also rejected the argument by Asianet counsel Shirin Khajuria that a draft agreement sent to Sathyadhara for execution “is tantamount to an oral contract between the parties.”

    The Tribunal said that placement of the channel continued to be the main dispute in the letters sent by the two parties.

    There were other differences with respect to the payment terms and other clauses of the agreement as well as the period of the agreement, the Tribunal noted. There was no agreement between the parties as the witness admitted Sathyadhara sought payment in instalments and also sought specific placement of its channels in the cable TV network of the petitioner.

    There was no acceptance of the offer made by Asianet by Sathyadhara and hence, there no concluded contract. On the contrary, Sathyadhara was willing to enter into agreement subject to Asianet agreeing to certain terms and conditions.

    The Tribunal said the law in this regard is very clear and in a fairly recent case, the Supreme Court had held that in the absence of an acceptance of the bid of the plaintiff by a written communication, there is no concluded contract in favour of the plaintiff in relation to the offer made by it.

    The Tribunal rejected arguments on the basis of Section 70 of the Indian Contracts Act as the parties were in discussion but could not come to any agreement.

  • TDSAT asks Star India to restore signals to Karnataka LCO subject to part payment

    TDSAT asks Star India to restore signals to Karnataka LCO subject to part payment

    NEW DELHI: Star India has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to restore signals to Karnataka based local cable operator (LCO) V4 Media, provided it pays Rs 12.91 lakh through RTGS as committed by it.

     

    Listing the matter for 21 December, the Tribunal said V4 Media will further make payment of Rs 19.88 lakh by 26 December.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava made it clear that “these payments are on account payment and shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.”

     

    Apart from the aforesaid payments, V4 Media will also pay the monthly subscription fee as per the invoice dated 5 November.

  • TDSAT directs 3 LCOs to clear Media Pro’s dues

    TDSAT directs 3 LCOs to clear Media Pro’s dues

    NEW DELHI: Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai has secured orders from the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for recovering payments from three different cable operators namely Madhumati Cable Network, Shiv Cable Network, and Mauli Cable Network of Maharashtra.

     

    In separate judgments, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh directed Media Pro to file a computation of accounts up to 31 March, 2013 within two weeks in the cases of Madhumati Cable Network and Shiv Cable Network for a decree to be dawn up accordingly. The decretal amount will also carry interest at 10 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the actual payment.

     

    In the case of Mauli Cable Network, the petition was allowed to the extent of the claims of Rs 10,94,481.16. The amount will also carry interest at 10 per cent from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment. The office is directed to make a decree accordingly.

     

     The petition against Madhumati is for recovery of the sum of Rs 8,03,125 along with interest at 18 per cent per annum from the petitioner as dues of subscription fee. Media Pro had executed an interconnect agreement with Madhumati on 20 June, 2012 for supply of its signals to the respondent for retransmission from 1 April, 2012 till 31 March, 2013. In terms of the agreement, the LCO was required to pay Rs 99,000.66 to Media Pro as the monthly subscription fee.

     

    Media Pro alleged that the LCO defaulted in payments and as a result the dues of subscription fee accumulated to Rs 8,03,125. The LCO did not appear despite service of notice.

     

    In the case against Shiv Cable Network, Media Pro claimed for recovery of the sum of Rs 6,28,658 along with interest at 18 per cent per annum as dues of subscription fee. According to Media Pro, the LCO executed an interconnect agreement with it on 1 January, 2012 for supply of its signals for retransmission. The agreement commenced from the date of execution and came to end on 31 March, 2013. In terms of the agreement, the respondent was required to pay Rs 99,778.31 to Media Pro as the monthly subscription fee.

     

    The Tribunal, which also examined witnesses in the latter cases, said there is no reason not to accept the claim of Media Pro for the term of the agreements.

     

    The claim of Media Pro, however, extended to 18 October, 2013 as it is claimed that it continued to supply signals to the LCOs till that date. But the Tribunal rejected this claim in the absence of any renewal agreement.

     

    Both Madhumati and Shiv Cable did not appear despite service of notice and hence, the petition proceeded ex parte.

     

    While allowing the claims of Mauli Cable Network on the basis of the Interconnect agreement, TDSAT rejected the claims made by Media Pro in respect of Zee Turner, which the Tribunal said “appears to be on a different footing. The petition filed on behalf of Media Pro is very sketchy and in so far as the alleged dues of Zee Turner are concerned.” The Zee Turner claim is for Rs 7,71,802.04 on the basis of an undisclosed agreement between the LCO and Zee Turner.

     

    No agreement between Zee Turner and the LCO (or for that matter for supply of signals of Zee Turner prior to 1 December, 2011), which alone can form the basis for the claim for the arrears has been produced before the Tribunal. Five invoices are produced of which the first one is dated 15 December, 2011, that is, shortly after the execution of the agreement on 8 December, 2011. It shows the payment due date as 22 December, 2011 and shows previous period outstanding as nil. Though, apart from the statement of account of Media Pro, a statement of account of Zee Turner has been filed along with the petition, it is of no help in the absence of any agreement between Zee Turner and the respondent. Moreover, the witness examined in the case identified and proved only the Media Pro statement of account and not the Zee Turner statement of account.

  • TDSAT asks Durgapur MSO to permit head-end inspection by Star India

    TDSAT asks Durgapur MSO to permit head-end inspection by Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) directed the multi-system operator (MSO) Akash Tori Infocom Services to allow Star India to examine its headends in Durgapur on 18 and 19 November.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava listed the matter for 27 November.

     

    The order was given after the Tribunal was informed by Akash Tori counsel Radhika Gupta that the MSO had not yet received some set top boxes (STBs) it had ordered.

     

    When the matter had first come up on 19 October, the Tribunal had noted that Akash Tori was a ‘fledgling multi-system operator’ and ‘Star India cannot have any objection to give its signals on RIO terms to it,’ permitting Star to examine the headend of the MSO.

     

    However, Star India counsel Arjun Natarajan told the Tribunal today that the MSO had not given a convenient date as instructed by the Tribunal and it was only when the broadcaster wrote to the MSO that it had referred to the STBs, which were yet to arrive.

     

    Thereupon, Justice Alam queried as to why an MSO should file a petition for signals when it was not ready to receive them. The MSO had filed a petition seeking Star’s signals in digital mode on RIO terms.