ITV

Tag: Justice Aftab Alam

  • Hitz FM, India FM can migrate to Phase III if govt appeal fails

    Hitz FM, India FM can migrate to Phase III if govt appeal fails

    NEW DELHI: Hitz FM Radio India Pvt. Ltd and India FM Radio India Pvt Ltd were assured today that their applications for migration to Phase III would be considered despite lapse of last date if the appeal filed by the Government in the High Court fails.

     

    The assurance was given before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT) by Information and Broadcasting Ministry counsel Rajeev Sharma.

     

    Sharma said the appeal was yet to be given a number and yet to be listed before the Court. 

     

    In their miscellaneous applications, the two radio channels had said that they had so far not been allowed to migrate from Phase I to Phase II, notwithstanding the Tribunal’s judgment  

     

    It is stated that the channels could migrate to Phase III only if they first migrated to Phase II.

     

    However, they said that as the deadline for operators in Phase II for migration to Phase III was ending, they apprehended that they may not be allowed to migrate and as a result, the Tribunal’s judgment may end in frustration.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “This fully satisfies the apprehension of the channels.”

  • LCOs can jointly file petitions to air grievances: TDSAT

    LCOs can jointly file petitions to air grievances: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: In a preliminary observation that may have far-reaching consequences, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT) has found no legal impediment in local cable operators (LCOs) coming together in an association to raise their grievances.
     
     
    TDSAT rejected the preliminary objection by Siti Cable Networks counsel Tejveer Bhatia that under Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute between (i) a licensor and licensee; (ii) two or more service providers; and (iii) a service provider and a group of consumers. 
     
     
    According to Bhatia, the Jabalpur Cable Operators Welfare Association does not come under any of these three categories. 
     
     
    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam, member Kuldip Singh, and B B Srivastava said, “We are unable to accept the objection. The petitioner is a registered association of cable operators. It is representing 90 cable
    operators, who are in dispute with the respondent, a multi system operator.”
     
     
    The Tribunal said, “The nature of the dispute between the cable operators and the MSO is the same. Each of the cable operator is a service provider and each of them can approach this Tribunal in respect of its disputes with the respondent. But being small operators they may not have the necessary wherewithall and the resources to agitate its grievances before the Tribunal sited in Delhi. If, therefore, for financial and logistical reasons, the cable operators pool their resources and authorise the association to represent them before the Tribunal, we see no legal impediment in their maintaining this petition. More so, as each of the cable operator by virtue of the
    authorisation given to the association, will be bound by the orders passed in this petition.”
     
     
    Noting that the issues raised in the petition are substantial and need consideration by the Tribunal, it directed the parties to maintain status quo until further orders. In case any payment falls due before the next date in this case, the cable operators (90 in number) will make payment to Siticable at the rate at which each of them made the last payment. Subject to this direction, Siticable will not discontinue supply of its signals to the cable operators.
     
     
    The Tribunal directed Bhatia to file the reply within a week. But it said Bhatia will be free to reagitate the issue of maintainability of the petition, and the point, if so required may be considered in greater detail. 
     
     
    Listing the matter for 6 October, the Tribunal said rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week from the date of receipt of copy of the reply.
  • Siti Cable to not disconnect signals to 5 Faridabad LCOs

    Siti Cable to not disconnect signals to 5 Faridabad LCOs

    NEW DELHI: Siti Cable Networks has committed before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT) that it will not disconnect the signals of the five local cable operators (LCOs) of Faridabad.

     

    These cable operators are members of the Excellent Cable Operators Association.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava directed that these cases be also listed on 8 October.

     

    This case will now be heard along with the batch of cases from Progressive Cable Network Association, Faridabad.

     

    The Tribunal noted that it had received Rohit Vasvani’s report in the case.

  • TDSAT asks Sun Distribution to sign new interconnect agreement with Vision Digital Cable

    TDSAT asks Sun Distribution to sign new interconnect agreement with Vision Digital Cable

    NEW DELHI: Vision Digital Cable and Sun Distribution Services Pvt Ltd have been permitted by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT) to execute a fresh interconnect agreement adding 273 subscribers to the existing 1612 subscribers of Vision Digital Cable.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava also accepted the plea that 57 subscribers whose premises were found locked during a joint survey by the parties should be included in the list of subscribers.

     

    The joint survey, which had been carried out following orders of the Tribunal earlier, shows that Vision Digital has 216 subscribers, of which 168 are receiving signals apart from Vision Digital from some other local cable operator as well. Forty-eight subscribers out of 216 are receiving their signals solely from the petitioner. 

     

    The Tribunal made it clear that Vision Digital will not add to its number of subscribers without giving prior intimation to Sun Distribution and getting its consent in writing. 

     

    In case Vision Digital makes the request for any addition to its subscriber base, Sun Distribution must respond within two weeks from the date of receipt of the request, after making verification, if any, desired by it. 

     

    In case Sun Distribution does not accede to the request of Vision Digital for adding of subscribers to its existing base, it will give reasons for not accepting the request.