ITV

Tag: Kuldip Singh

  • TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

    TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has said it may take appropriate action if Canara Star fails to furnish the required guarantee as sought by Star India in their long-pending dispute.

    Meanwhile, Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh listed the matter for 9 March. The Tribunal took note of the fact that Canara Star had given a payment schedule to Star India which was represented by Counsel Arjun Natarajan. Earlier last month, the Tribunal had given time in two different hearings to Canara Star to furnish the guarantee.   

    In the hearing in the  third week of December last year, 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 about 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.

    The directive had come after being informed by Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh that the parties had failed to resolve the dispute, though Star India counsel Kunal Tandon and Arjun Natarajan had told the Tribunal that no attempts had been made by Canara Star to resolve the dispute.

    The Tribunal had also asked Canara to produce its bank statements and materials to show payments made by it towards invoices raised by Star India based on Canara’s SMS reports.

    Canara, which has allegedly sold off 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.

    The other two petitions are by Canara Star challenging disconnection notices issues by Star India for analogue areas of Kumta and Bhatkal.

  • TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

    TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has said it may take appropriate action if Canara Star fails to furnish the required guarantee as sought by Star India in their long-pending dispute.

    Meanwhile, Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh listed the matter for 9 March. The Tribunal took note of the fact that Canara Star had given a payment schedule to Star India which was represented by Counsel Arjun Natarajan. Earlier last month, the Tribunal had given time in two different hearings to Canara Star to furnish the guarantee.   

    In the hearing in the  third week of December last year, 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 about 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.

    The directive had come after being informed by Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh that the parties had failed to resolve the dispute, though Star India counsel Kunal Tandon and Arjun Natarajan had told the Tribunal that no attempts had been made by Canara Star to resolve the dispute.

    The Tribunal had also asked Canara to produce its bank statements and materials to show payments made by it towards invoices raised by Star India based on Canara’s SMS reports.

    Canara, which has allegedly sold off 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.

    The other two petitions are by Canara Star challenging disconnection notices issues by Star India for analogue areas of Kumta and Bhatkal.

  • 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.

  • TDSAT directs Karnataka MSO to pay monthly subscription pending dispute with Star India

    TDSAT directs Karnataka MSO to pay monthly subscription pending dispute with Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Karnataka based multi system operator (MSO) V4 Media to make payment of the monthly subscription fee at the rate of the last invoice raised by Star India until settlement of their dispute.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava listed the matter for 2 March and asked V4 Media counsel V Subrahmaniam to file the position about ownership pattern of the MSO.

    Earlier, the parties had been negotiating for entering into a fresh agreement. According to Subrahmaniam, the negotiation was not making any headway because Star India insisted on a 10 per cent increase in the subscriber base over the last agreement.

    V4 Media, however was unable to accept the demand and according to Subrahmaniam, there was no actual increase in the MSO’s subscriber base.

    Subrahmaniam also informed there was a split in the partnership firm V4 Media and after the split, the two sides also split up the earlier subscriber base.

    She submitted that she would file the deed under which the partnership was reconstituted and the current SLR of the V4 Media following the reconstitution at Star India’s Mangalore office. On receipt of this, Star would then inform the Tribunal about its stand in the matter.

  • TDSAT directs Karnataka MSO to pay monthly subscription pending dispute with Star India

    TDSAT directs Karnataka MSO to pay monthly subscription pending dispute with Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Karnataka based multi system operator (MSO) V4 Media to make payment of the monthly subscription fee at the rate of the last invoice raised by Star India until settlement of their dispute.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava listed the matter for 2 March and asked V4 Media counsel V Subrahmaniam to file the position about ownership pattern of the MSO.

    Earlier, the parties had been negotiating for entering into a fresh agreement. According to Subrahmaniam, the negotiation was not making any headway because Star India insisted on a 10 per cent increase in the subscriber base over the last agreement.

    V4 Media, however was unable to accept the demand and according to Subrahmaniam, there was no actual increase in the MSO’s subscriber base.

    Subrahmaniam also informed there was a split in the partnership firm V4 Media and after the split, the two sides also split up the earlier subscriber base.

    She submitted that she would file the deed under which the partnership was reconstituted and the current SLR of the V4 Media following the reconstitution at Star India’s Mangalore office. On receipt of this, Star would then inform the Tribunal about its stand in the matter.

  • Petitions not maintainable if no interconnect agreement is produced: TDSAT

    Petitions not maintainable if no interconnect agreement is produced: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has made it clear in six different petitions relating to recovery of dues in the absence of an interconnect agreement may not be maintainable.

    In five cases filed by IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd against Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Udhistar, Sai Cable Network – II, Vinesh Tyagi, and Anita Sehrawat, the Tribunal noted that an interconnect agreement was executed on 22 August last but the petitions were for recovery of dues prior to that.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “From the agreement it does not appear that it covered any period prior to the date of its execution.” 

    The Tribunal added that it was “not at all clear as to how and on what basis the respondent was supplying signals in the absence of any agreement in writing.”

    Indusind counsel Kanupriya Gupta was given time to find out if there was any agreement prior to the one annexed with the petition.

    The matter was listed for 2 March but it was made clear that in case there is no agreement prior to the agreement dated 22 August, 2015, this petition for recovery of the alleged dues prior to that date may not be maintainable.

    In another case by IndusInd against Vajeshwar Gundla for recovery of alleged dues of subscription fee and return of set top boxes, the Tribunal was informed that all the 144 STBs had been returned.

    However, the Tribunal said the petition had been filed without any interconnect agreement between the two sides. 

    Vajeshwar Gundla counsel Tushar Singh said there was no averment that the relationship between the two sides was on the basis of any agreement in writing.

    However, IndusInd counsel Vandana Jaisingh said there was no mention about the interconnect agreement as it was not traceable and wanted more time. 

    While adjourning the matter for 10 March, the Tribunal said, “It is made clear that in case no interconnect agreement is found to be in existence between the two sides, that will raise a question regarding the very maintainability of this petition.”

  • Petitions not maintainable if no interconnect agreement is produced: TDSAT

    Petitions not maintainable if no interconnect agreement is produced: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has made it clear in six different petitions relating to recovery of dues in the absence of an interconnect agreement may not be maintainable.

    In five cases filed by IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd against Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Udhistar, Sai Cable Network – II, Vinesh Tyagi, and Anita Sehrawat, the Tribunal noted that an interconnect agreement was executed on 22 August last but the petitions were for recovery of dues prior to that.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “From the agreement it does not appear that it covered any period prior to the date of its execution.” 

    The Tribunal added that it was “not at all clear as to how and on what basis the respondent was supplying signals in the absence of any agreement in writing.”

    Indusind counsel Kanupriya Gupta was given time to find out if there was any agreement prior to the one annexed with the petition.

    The matter was listed for 2 March but it was made clear that in case there is no agreement prior to the agreement dated 22 August, 2015, this petition for recovery of the alleged dues prior to that date may not be maintainable.

    In another case by IndusInd against Vajeshwar Gundla for recovery of alleged dues of subscription fee and return of set top boxes, the Tribunal was informed that all the 144 STBs had been returned.

    However, the Tribunal said the petition had been filed without any interconnect agreement between the two sides. 

    Vajeshwar Gundla counsel Tushar Singh said there was no averment that the relationship between the two sides was on the basis of any agreement in writing.

    However, IndusInd counsel Vandana Jaisingh said there was no mention about the interconnect agreement as it was not traceable and wanted more time. 

    While adjourning the matter for 10 March, the Tribunal said, “It is made clear that in case no interconnect agreement is found to be in existence between the two sides, that will raise a question regarding the very maintainability of this petition.”

  • Prejudice caused to broadcaster by TV channel’s placement has to be established: TDSAT

    Prejudice caused to broadcaster by TV channel’s placement has to be established: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has rejected the demand by Sun Distribution Services for placement of three Malayalam channels on numbers of their choice on Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.

    Sun wanted restoration of its three channels – Surya, Kiran TV and Surya Music – to their original placements at 107, 144 and 146 respectively. It was said that after the hiatus of a few days when these were off air due to technical glitches (according to Asianet) the three channels are now being shown at LCN 648, 664 and 668. 

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said no case is made out for any direction to the respondent to restore the LCN placements of the petitioner’s three channels by way of an interim order. 

    While accepting the terms in the interconnect agreement that the subscriber operator would ensure that no subscribed channel would be disadvantaged or otherwise treated less favourably with respect to the competing channels on a genre basis, the Tribunal said no case had been made out in support of this.  

    Whether or not the change in placement has caused any disadvantage or amounts to inferior treatment with respect to competing channels on a genre basis is a pure question of fact, which can be gone into only after evidences are led by the two sides, the Tribunal said while posting the matter before the Registrar’s court on 17 March for getting the pleadings completed, framing of issues and taking evidences.

    Sun had initially filed the petition agitating the grievance that Asianet had discontinued the supply of its signals on its network without any notice and in violation of the Regulations. The petition was filed on 14 January but when it came up before the Tribunal the next day, it was stated that the broadcast of channels was resumed on the respondent’s network but their placements were changed causing much prejudice to the petitioner.  

    Noticing this grievance of the broadcaster, the petition was adjourned to enable the counsel for Asianet to get proper instructions in the matter. 

    Thereafter Sun filed an affidavit on 28 January and its reply was filed by Asianet the next day.

    Sun Counsel Abhishek Malhotra strongly contended that the Asianet action in changing the placements of the channels was in violation of the Regulations and the terms of the agreements.

    Asianet counsel Navin Chawla submitted that there was no violation of any Regulations or the terms of agreement in shifting the positions of the three channels and the respondent was fully entitled to place the channels as and where it suited its interests.

    The two sides have been in interconnect relationship for the past several years. In the past, the agreements between the two sides were based on mutual negotiations and the petitioner’s three channels were consistently placed at LCN 107 (Surya), 144 (Kiran TV) and 146 (Surya Music). The parties executed a fresh agreement on 31 December, 2015 to take effect from 1 January, 2016 covering Kerala that came under the Digital Addressable System (DAS) regime in Phase-III. 

    The present agreement, unlike the previous agreements, is based on the Sun’S RIO. It is well known that a distributor accepts the RIO based agreement only as a measure of last resort.

    Malhotra submitted that the three channels belong to “GEC (Malayalam)”, “Movies (Malayalam)” and “Music (Malayalam)” genres respectively and Asianet was legally obliged to put them in the genres to which each of them belonged. He further submitted that at LCN 107, 144 and 146, the three channels were rightly placed in their respective genres but at LCN 648, 664 and 668, those channels are placed among channels, which do not belong to their respective genres. 

    However, Chawla said the three channels, which were earlier in Malayalam Package-I were now in Malayalam Package-II among all the Malayalam language channels and the only grouse of Sun was that they had been assigned distant numbers.  

    The Tribunal, which saw the earlier and present groupings found that in the present grouping, the number of GEC channels in its neighbourhood had become relatively fewer. Chawla sought to justify the change by stating that it was open to the Asianet to make language based groupings rather than content based groupings and all the three channels of Sun continued to be in the Malayalam group.

    Malhotra drew attention to Regulation 5[14(A)], [14(B)] and [14(C)] of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) (First Amendment) Regulations 2012.  The Regulations said, “The multi system operator will place the channels of a broadcaster in the genre declared by such broadcaster and no broadcaster shall demand from the multi-system operator to assign a particular number of its channels.”

    Thus, the Tribunal noted that while prima facie Sun was right, the fact remained that there was nothing to show that Sun made the declaration regarding the genres of the three channels to the distributor at the time of execution of the agreement.

  • Prejudice caused to broadcaster by TV channel’s placement has to be established: TDSAT

    Prejudice caused to broadcaster by TV channel’s placement has to be established: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has rejected the demand by Sun Distribution Services for placement of three Malayalam channels on numbers of their choice on Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.

    Sun wanted restoration of its three channels – Surya, Kiran TV and Surya Music – to their original placements at 107, 144 and 146 respectively. It was said that after the hiatus of a few days when these were off air due to technical glitches (according to Asianet) the three channels are now being shown at LCN 648, 664 and 668. 

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said no case is made out for any direction to the respondent to restore the LCN placements of the petitioner’s three channels by way of an interim order. 

    While accepting the terms in the interconnect agreement that the subscriber operator would ensure that no subscribed channel would be disadvantaged or otherwise treated less favourably with respect to the competing channels on a genre basis, the Tribunal said no case had been made out in support of this.  

    Whether or not the change in placement has caused any disadvantage or amounts to inferior treatment with respect to competing channels on a genre basis is a pure question of fact, which can be gone into only after evidences are led by the two sides, the Tribunal said while posting the matter before the Registrar’s court on 17 March for getting the pleadings completed, framing of issues and taking evidences.

    Sun had initially filed the petition agitating the grievance that Asianet had discontinued the supply of its signals on its network without any notice and in violation of the Regulations. The petition was filed on 14 January but when it came up before the Tribunal the next day, it was stated that the broadcast of channels was resumed on the respondent’s network but their placements were changed causing much prejudice to the petitioner.  

    Noticing this grievance of the broadcaster, the petition was adjourned to enable the counsel for Asianet to get proper instructions in the matter. 

    Thereafter Sun filed an affidavit on 28 January and its reply was filed by Asianet the next day.

    Sun Counsel Abhishek Malhotra strongly contended that the Asianet action in changing the placements of the channels was in violation of the Regulations and the terms of the agreements.

    Asianet counsel Navin Chawla submitted that there was no violation of any Regulations or the terms of agreement in shifting the positions of the three channels and the respondent was fully entitled to place the channels as and where it suited its interests.

    The two sides have been in interconnect relationship for the past several years. In the past, the agreements between the two sides were based on mutual negotiations and the petitioner’s three channels were consistently placed at LCN 107 (Surya), 144 (Kiran TV) and 146 (Surya Music). The parties executed a fresh agreement on 31 December, 2015 to take effect from 1 January, 2016 covering Kerala that came under the Digital Addressable System (DAS) regime in Phase-III. 

    The present agreement, unlike the previous agreements, is based on the Sun’S RIO. It is well known that a distributor accepts the RIO based agreement only as a measure of last resort.

    Malhotra submitted that the three channels belong to “GEC (Malayalam)”, “Movies (Malayalam)” and “Music (Malayalam)” genres respectively and Asianet was legally obliged to put them in the genres to which each of them belonged. He further submitted that at LCN 107, 144 and 146, the three channels were rightly placed in their respective genres but at LCN 648, 664 and 668, those channels are placed among channels, which do not belong to their respective genres. 

    However, Chawla said the three channels, which were earlier in Malayalam Package-I were now in Malayalam Package-II among all the Malayalam language channels and the only grouse of Sun was that they had been assigned distant numbers.  

    The Tribunal, which saw the earlier and present groupings found that in the present grouping, the number of GEC channels in its neighbourhood had become relatively fewer. Chawla sought to justify the change by stating that it was open to the Asianet to make language based groupings rather than content based groupings and all the three channels of Sun continued to be in the Malayalam group.

    Malhotra drew attention to Regulation 5[14(A)], [14(B)] and [14(C)] of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) (First Amendment) Regulations 2012.  The Regulations said, “The multi system operator will place the channels of a broadcaster in the genre declared by such broadcaster and no broadcaster shall demand from the multi-system operator to assign a particular number of its channels.”

    Thus, the Tribunal noted that while prima facie Sun was right, the fact remained that there was nothing to show that Sun made the declaration regarding the genres of the three channels to the distributor at the time of execution of the agreement.