ITV

Tag: Kuldip Singh

  • Clarify status with Star India, TDSAT asks Canara Star

    Clarify status with Star India, TDSAT asks Canara Star

    NEW DELHI: Canara Star Communications Pvt. Ltd Karnataka, which has a long-pending dispute with Star India with regard to payments, has been given one more opportunity by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to reply to an affidavit of 23 March 2016 by the broadcaster alleging there was no entity of the name of the MSO on the website of the Corporate Affairs Ministry.

    Canara Star was given one more week from 20 December 2016 to file its affidavit, and Star India was permitted to respond to the affidavit if it so desired.

    Members B B Srivastava and A K Bhargava put up the matter for further hearing on 20 January 2017.

    The Tribunal said: “It is seen that the affidavit which has been filed by Canara Star is not prima facie in conformity with the directions given by the Tribunal on 18 December 2015.

    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 was 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.

    As 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 could intervene, 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 Bangalore also.

    Canara, which has allegedly sold its business to another MSO called All Digital, was to produce its deed of transfer of establishment to All Digital which was made a party in the petition filed by Star India.

    Earlier this year, Canara Star had been asked by the TDSAT to present a payment schedule to Star India to settle their dispute.

    However, then chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members — Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava accepted the plea by Star India counsel Arjun Natarajan that this schedule should not come in the way of its requirement to furnish a guarantee. Earlier, on 4 February, the Bench had granted a week’s time to Canara Star represented by Counsel Tushar Singh, to furnish a guarantee.

    In terms of the earlier order of 14 January, the directors of Canara Star were present in person before TDSAT on 29 January.

    In the hearing in third week of December, the Tribunal had asked Canara Star to intimate Star India whether it admits the SMS reports submitted by the broadcaster for the period 2014 to January 2015.

    The common order by the Tribunal on three petitions including one by Star India against Canara Star claiming recovery dues of around Rs 3 crore pertaining to the MSO’s operations in DAS area of Bangalore said this was subject to the two parties failing to arrive at a final settlement.

    Also read:

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

  • Clarify status with Star India, TDSAT asks Canara Star

    Clarify status with Star India, TDSAT asks Canara Star

    NEW DELHI: Canara Star Communications Pvt. Ltd Karnataka, which has a long-pending dispute with Star India with regard to payments, has been given one more opportunity by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to reply to an affidavit of 23 March 2016 by the broadcaster alleging there was no entity of the name of the MSO on the website of the Corporate Affairs Ministry.

    Canara Star was given one more week from 20 December 2016 to file its affidavit, and Star India was permitted to respond to the affidavit if it so desired.

    Members B B Srivastava and A K Bhargava put up the matter for further hearing on 20 January 2017.

    The Tribunal said: “It is seen that the affidavit which has been filed by Canara Star is not prima facie in conformity with the directions given by the Tribunal on 18 December 2015.

    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 was 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.

    As 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 could intervene, 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 Bangalore also.

    Canara, which has allegedly sold its business to another MSO called All Digital, was to produce its deed of transfer of establishment to All Digital which was made a party in the petition filed by Star India.

    Earlier this year, Canara Star had been asked by the TDSAT to present a payment schedule to Star India to settle their dispute.

    However, then chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members — Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava accepted the plea by Star India counsel Arjun Natarajan that this schedule should not come in the way of its requirement to furnish a guarantee. Earlier, on 4 February, the Bench had granted a week’s time to Canara Star represented by Counsel Tushar Singh, to furnish a guarantee.

    In terms of the earlier order of 14 January, the directors of Canara Star were present in person before TDSAT on 29 January.

    In the hearing in third week of December, the Tribunal had asked Canara Star to intimate Star India whether it admits the SMS reports submitted by the broadcaster for the period 2014 to January 2015.

    The common order by the Tribunal on three petitions including one by Star India against Canara Star claiming recovery dues of around Rs 3 crore pertaining to the MSO’s operations in DAS area of Bangalore said this was subject to the two parties failing to arrive at a final settlement.

    Also read:

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

  • 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.   

  • Digicable plea for placement fee from News Express allowed for analogue areas only: TDSAT

    Digicable plea for placement fee from News Express allowed for analogue areas only: TDSAT

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has partially allowed a petition by MSO Digicable Network (India) Pvt. Ltd claiming analogue placement charges from Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd which own the News Express Channel for a sum of Rs 63,03,058.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said the amount will carry interest at 18 per cent from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The office was directed to make a decree accordingly. The Tribunal turned down the petition in so far as it related to the areas that came under digital addressable system   

    However, the Tribunal said, “We find it difficult to hold that the petitioner was able to fully discharge its obligations under the digital placement agreement dated 16 July 2012 for the areas of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra. The Tribunal said that it is not possible to divide the amount of the placement charges from the invoices and the statement of account under the digital placement agreement and to allow the petitioner’s claim for the rest of the areas. It is, therefore, not possible to allow the petitioner’s claim under the digital placement agreement and the claim in so far it relates to the agreement dated 16 July 2012 must fail.

    On the petitioner’s claim that the towns of UP were still to come under the digital addressable system regime and there could be no agreement for transmission of channel in those towns in digital mode, the Tribunal said” “There is no law that prevents digital transmission in areas where the digital regime is yet to be implemented in terms of the notification issued by the Central Government.”

    Digicable had filed the petition for recovery of Rs 2,73,39,000 as dues of channel placement charges from Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd for carrying its channel News Express on its digital as well as analogue cable TV networks. The amount was claimed along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date the payment was due up to the date of payment.

    The claim of the petitioner was based on two channel placement agreements. The first one was in respect of areas where Digicable had a digital cable network. This agreement was executed on 16 July 2012 for the period 16 July 2012 to 15 July 2013. The second agreement was for certain areas where Digicable was doing transmission in analogue mode and was executed on 09 August 2012 for the period 9 August 2012 to 8 August 2013.

  • Digicable plea for placement fee from News Express allowed for analogue areas only: TDSAT

    Digicable plea for placement fee from News Express allowed for analogue areas only: TDSAT

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has partially allowed a petition by MSO Digicable Network (India) Pvt. Ltd claiming analogue placement charges from Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd which own the News Express Channel for a sum of Rs 63,03,058.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said the amount will carry interest at 18 per cent from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The office was directed to make a decree accordingly. The Tribunal turned down the petition in so far as it related to the areas that came under digital addressable system   

    However, the Tribunal said, “We find it difficult to hold that the petitioner was able to fully discharge its obligations under the digital placement agreement dated 16 July 2012 for the areas of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra. The Tribunal said that it is not possible to divide the amount of the placement charges from the invoices and the statement of account under the digital placement agreement and to allow the petitioner’s claim for the rest of the areas. It is, therefore, not possible to allow the petitioner’s claim under the digital placement agreement and the claim in so far it relates to the agreement dated 16 July 2012 must fail.

    On the petitioner’s claim that the towns of UP were still to come under the digital addressable system regime and there could be no agreement for transmission of channel in those towns in digital mode, the Tribunal said” “There is no law that prevents digital transmission in areas where the digital regime is yet to be implemented in terms of the notification issued by the Central Government.”

    Digicable had filed the petition for recovery of Rs 2,73,39,000 as dues of channel placement charges from Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd for carrying its channel News Express on its digital as well as analogue cable TV networks. The amount was claimed along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date the payment was due up to the date of payment.

    The claim of the petitioner was based on two channel placement agreements. The first one was in respect of areas where Digicable had a digital cable network. This agreement was executed on 16 July 2012 for the period 16 July 2012 to 15 July 2013. The second agreement was for certain areas where Digicable was doing transmission in analogue mode and was executed on 09 August 2012 for the period 9 August 2012 to 8 August 2013.

  • TDSAT rejects Neo Sports petition seeking interconnect agreement with Tata Sky on its own terms

    TDSAT rejects Neo Sports petition seeking interconnect agreement with Tata Sky on its own terms

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a petition by Neo Sports Broadcast Private Ltd seeking an interconnect agreement on its own reference interconnect offer terms with DTH platform Tata Sky.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said the submissions by the broadcaster were ‘quite misconceived’.

    Referring to the two provisions relied upon by counsel for the broadcaster, the Tribunal said these were part of the broadcaster’s obligations to publish Reference Interconnect Offers for direct-to-home service and the provisions relied upon secure the interests of the direct-to-home distributor rather than the broadcaster.

    The Tribunal levied costs of Rs 25,000 which would be deposited with the TDSAT Employees Welfare Society within four weeks.

    The Tribunal termed the petition as an “unusual case in that the broadcaster had come to it seeking an interconnect agreement on its own Reference interconnect Offer (RIO) terms.

    According to Neo Sports, it had been in inter-connect relationship with Tata Sky and the latter hadbeen carrying on its platform Neo sports’ two channels: Neo Sports and Neo Prime (formerly NeoCricket) since 2006-07. The last agreement between the parties was executed on 17 September 20 10 for a period of three years commencing from 1October 20 1 0 and coming to end on 30September 2013.

    Under clause V of the agreement Tata Sky was obliged to pay to Neo Sports “the rather steep” subscription fee of Rs 124 crore (R s. 1 09 crore for channels  being distributed in the Standard Definition mode and Rs 15 crore for channels being distributed in the High Definition mode).

    It is to be noted that at the time the interconnect agreement was executed Neo Sports  enjoyed exclusive BCCI rights for live broadcast of international cricket matches which gave it the power tocommand very high subscription fees in the Indian broadcasting market.  It lost the right to the cricket broadcasts in December 2011 and “it is a measure of popularity of the game in the country that there after it was unable to hold onto the amount of subscription fees stipulated in the agreement which was still subsisting”. The two sides executed an Addendum on 16 May 2012  to the Distribution Agreement of 17 September  2010 reducing the subscription fee substantially and it was fixed at the rate of Rs one crore per month plus applicable service tax for the period from April 2012 to 30September 2013.

    The Tribunal noted that negotiations continued thereafter but Neo Sports did not have the marketing power it had at the time of execution of the earlier agreement and Tata Sky was no longer willing to meet its demands.

  • TDSAT rejects Neo Sports petition seeking interconnect agreement with Tata Sky on its own terms

    TDSAT rejects Neo Sports petition seeking interconnect agreement with Tata Sky on its own terms

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a petition by Neo Sports Broadcast Private Ltd seeking an interconnect agreement on its own reference interconnect offer terms with DTH platform Tata Sky.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said the submissions by the broadcaster were ‘quite misconceived’.

    Referring to the two provisions relied upon by counsel for the broadcaster, the Tribunal said these were part of the broadcaster’s obligations to publish Reference Interconnect Offers for direct-to-home service and the provisions relied upon secure the interests of the direct-to-home distributor rather than the broadcaster.

    The Tribunal levied costs of Rs 25,000 which would be deposited with the TDSAT Employees Welfare Society within four weeks.

    The Tribunal termed the petition as an “unusual case in that the broadcaster had come to it seeking an interconnect agreement on its own Reference interconnect Offer (RIO) terms.

    According to Neo Sports, it had been in inter-connect relationship with Tata Sky and the latter hadbeen carrying on its platform Neo sports’ two channels: Neo Sports and Neo Prime (formerly NeoCricket) since 2006-07. The last agreement between the parties was executed on 17 September 20 10 for a period of three years commencing from 1October 20 1 0 and coming to end on 30September 2013.

    Under clause V of the agreement Tata Sky was obliged to pay to Neo Sports “the rather steep” subscription fee of Rs 124 crore (R s. 1 09 crore for channels  being distributed in the Standard Definition mode and Rs 15 crore for channels being distributed in the High Definition mode).

    It is to be noted that at the time the interconnect agreement was executed Neo Sports  enjoyed exclusive BCCI rights for live broadcast of international cricket matches which gave it the power tocommand very high subscription fees in the Indian broadcasting market.  It lost the right to the cricket broadcasts in December 2011 and “it is a measure of popularity of the game in the country that there after it was unable to hold onto the amount of subscription fees stipulated in the agreement which was still subsisting”. The two sides executed an Addendum on 16 May 2012  to the Distribution Agreement of 17 September  2010 reducing the subscription fee substantially and it was fixed at the rate of Rs one crore per month plus applicable service tax for the period from April 2012 to 30September 2013.

    The Tribunal noted that negotiations continued thereafter but Neo Sports did not have the marketing power it had at the time of execution of the earlier agreement and Tata Sky was no longer willing to meet its demands.

  • TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    New Delhi, 25 March: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate has directed attachment of the bank accounts of Digicable Network (India) Ltd, accepting the plea in this regard by Media Pro Enterprise (I) Pvt. Ltd in the prayer clause in the execution application.

    However, the Tribunal said the order of attachment will become operative from 1 April, subject to the condition that Digicable Network “shall not make any withdrawal from the account, save and except for payment of salary to its staff”.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said a copy of the order should be sent to the concerned banks without delay.

    At the outset, the Tribunal noted that the execution proceedings are at a stage where the only course left is to make a direction for attachment of the bank accounts, head-ends and other properties of Digicable Networks. 

    However, the Tribunal said that “we wish to give one more opportunity to the respondent to try to resolve the matter amicably” before making such a direction.  

    The matter has been listed for 6 April when the CEO of Digicable should remain personally present before the Tribunal to make proposal, if any, for settlement with the respondent, the Tribunal said.

     

     
  • TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    New Delhi, 25 March: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate has directed attachment of the bank accounts of Digicable Network (India) Ltd, accepting the plea in this regard by Media Pro Enterprise (I) Pvt. Ltd in the prayer clause in the execution application.

    However, the Tribunal said the order of attachment will become operative from 1 April, subject to the condition that Digicable Network “shall not make any withdrawal from the account, save and except for payment of salary to its staff”.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said a copy of the order should be sent to the concerned banks without delay.

    At the outset, the Tribunal noted that the execution proceedings are at a stage where the only course left is to make a direction for attachment of the bank accounts, head-ends and other properties of Digicable Networks. 

    However, the Tribunal said that “we wish to give one more opportunity to the respondent to try to resolve the matter amicably” before making such a direction.  

    The matter has been listed for 6 April when the CEO of Digicable should remain personally present before the Tribunal to make proposal, if any, for settlement with the respondent, the Tribunal said.