Tag: Kuldip Singh

TDSAT fines Siti Cable for disobeying orders & contempt

NEW DELHI: Siti Cable has been fined Rs 2 lakh and asked to tender an unqualified apology to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for disobeying its order as well as for attempting to cover up its actions.

The directive came on a contempt petition in the matter relating to UCN Cable Network against Sambuddha Cable Network and Quality Cable Network.

TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava noted that the parties were in the process of settlement “as is generally the practice in the broadcasting sector.”

Disposing the contempt petition, the main matter was listed for 29 February.

Earlier, Siti Cable counsel Arun Kathpalia “in great fairness stated that notwithstanding the settlement with the petitioner, Siti Cable remains answerable to the Tribunal.”

Kathpalia accepted what was asked of Siti Cable and submitted that an apology on affidavit and the payment of cost will be made within two weeks.

The Tribunal said the amount of cost will be paid to TDSAT Employees Welfare Society.

February 15, 2016
TDSAT fines Siti Cable for disobeying orders & contempt

NEW DELHI: Siti Cable has been fined Rs 2 lakh and asked to tender an unqualified apology to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for disobeying its order as well as for attempting to cover up its actions.

The directive came on a contempt petition in the matter relating to UCN Cable Network against Sambuddha Cable Network and Quality Cable Network.

TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava noted that the parties were in the process of settlement “as is generally the practice in the broadcasting sector.”

Disposing the contempt petition, the main matter was listed for 29 February.

Earlier, Siti Cable counsel Arun Kathpalia “in great fairness stated that notwithstanding the settlement with the petitioner, Siti Cable remains answerable to the Tribunal.”

Kathpalia accepted what was asked of Siti Cable and submitted that an apology on affidavit and the payment of cost will be made within two weeks.

The Tribunal said the amount of cost will be paid to TDSAT Employees Welfare Society.

February 15, 2016
TDSAT directs Sun Distribution & Hathway to resolve disputes with LCOs

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd to restore its signals to local cable operator (LCO) CK Cable Network Pvt. Ltd on receipt of a payment of Rs 12.5 lakh.

TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “Needless to say that the payment would be on-account and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the two sides.”

Listing the matter for 22 February, the Tribunal permitted Sun to file its reply by the end of this week.

In another order, Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd was directed to execute an interconnect agreement with Sri Sai Communications, Hyderabad by mid-February.

Listing the matter for 22 February, the Tribunal said the parties may settle the commercial terms on the basis of mutual negotiations, otherwise, the relationship will be on the basis of the relevant provisions in the Regulations and the tariff orders.

Following the execution of the agreement, the respondent shall supply STBs to Sri Sai Communications against duly filled customer acquisition forms (CAFs) submitted by the LCO. Invoices will be raised on the basis of the number of active STBs as reflected in Hathway’s subscriber management system.

February 12, 2016
TDSAT directs Sun Distribution & Hathway to resolve disputes with LCOs

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd to restore its signals to local cable operator (LCO) CK Cable Network Pvt. Ltd on receipt of a payment of Rs 12.5 lakh.

TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “Needless to say that the payment would be on-account and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the two sides.”

Listing the matter for 22 February, the Tribunal permitted Sun to file its reply by the end of this week.

In another order, Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd was directed to execute an interconnect agreement with Sri Sai Communications, Hyderabad by mid-February.

Listing the matter for 22 February, the Tribunal said the parties may settle the commercial terms on the basis of mutual negotiations, otherwise, the relationship will be on the basis of the relevant provisions in the Regulations and the tariff orders.

Following the execution of the agreement, the respondent shall supply STBs to Sri Sai Communications against duly filled customer acquisition forms (CAFs) submitted by the LCO. Invoices will be raised on the basis of the number of active STBs as reflected in Hathway’s subscriber management system.

February 12, 2016
TDSAT gives Maharashtra’s World Vision final chance to present case against Indiacast

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has given World Vision Cable Network, Maharashtra, one final chance to present its case against Indiacast UTV Media Distribution on 10 February.

Noting that no one had appeared in the hearing, TDSAT chairperson Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “If no one appears on the next date, the petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution.”

The Tribunal noted that it appeared that after filing the petition, World Vision had lost interest in the matter but listed the matter for next month “as an indulgence.”

In the order of 14 December, 2015, the Tribunal had noted that World Vision’s area of operation was coming under the Digital Addressable System (DAS) regime from 1 January, 2016 and it was observed that any final order on the petition may be passed only after the Tribunal was satisfied that World Vision was in a position to continue with its operations under the DAS regime with effect from the new year.

As an interim measure, Indiacast UTV Media was directed to restore the supply of its signals to World Vision on Rs 2 lakh on-account payment.

However, the Tribunal was informed by Indiacast counsel Shashank Shekhar that signals had not been restored as no payment had been made.

Shekhar also said no documents had been furnished to his client for making fresh arrangements for supply of signals in digital mode on a down-graded subscriber base.

January 26, 2016
TDSAT gives Maharashtra’s World Vision final chance to present case against Indiacast

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has given World Vision Cable Network, Maharashtra, one final chance to present its case against Indiacast UTV Media Distribution on 10 February.

Noting that no one had appeared in the hearing, TDSAT chairperson Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “If no one appears on the next date, the petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution.”

The Tribunal noted that it appeared that after filing the petition, World Vision had lost interest in the matter but listed the matter for next month “as an indulgence.”

In the order of 14 December, 2015, the Tribunal had noted that World Vision’s area of operation was coming under the Digital Addressable System (DAS) regime from 1 January, 2016 and it was observed that any final order on the petition may be passed only after the Tribunal was satisfied that World Vision was in a position to continue with its operations under the DAS regime with effect from the new year.

As an interim measure, Indiacast UTV Media was directed to restore the supply of its signals to World Vision on Rs 2 lakh on-account payment.

However, the Tribunal was informed by Indiacast counsel Shashank Shekhar that signals had not been restored as no payment had been made.

Shekhar also said no documents had been furnished to his client for making fresh arrangements for supply of signals in digital mode on a down-graded subscriber base.

January 26, 2016
TDSAT asks LCOs on signal source post complaints against Tejpur Cable

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has asked Mahabhairab Cable Network and other cable networks to file an affidavit by 27 January disclosing the source of their signals after 31 December, 2015.

Listing the matter for 29 January, TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava took note of the statement by the LCO counsel Vivek Sarin that his clients were not receiving the signals from Tejpur Cable Networks and others despite the statement by the latter that the signals were being transmitted.

On the contrary, Sarin said none of the petitioners were receiving any signals from Tejpur Cable post 31 December, 2015 as the latter had removed the nodes through which the signals were being supplied to the LCOs.

Earlier, the Tribunal was told that all the LCOs had paid their dues to Tejpur Cable for the month of November 2015 (even though payments were made beyond the date as directed by the Tribunal).

As far as the dues of subscription fee for December 2015 were concerned, Sarin said only petitioner no.23 was in default. Sarin stated that petitioner nos. 10, 24 and 25 have “merged” and continued their relationship with Tejpur Cable. He further stated that except petitioner no. 23, all other petitioners had paid the subscription fees for December 2015 to Tejpur Cable by 12 January, 2016.

Tejpur Cable counsel Sharath Sampath said four among the petitioners – nos.2, 10, 23 and 25 – were in default stated in payment of subscription fees for December 2015.

But notwithstanding this, Sampath said Tejpur Cable was continuing the supply of its signals to all the petitioners including the four defaulters.

January 24, 2016
TDSAT asks LCOs on signal source post complaints against Tejpur Cable

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has asked Mahabhairab Cable Network and other cable networks to file an affidavit by 27 January disclosing the source of their signals after 31 December, 2015.

Listing the matter for 29 January, TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava took note of the statement by the LCO counsel Vivek Sarin that his clients were not receiving the signals from Tejpur Cable Networks and others despite the statement by the latter that the signals were being transmitted.

On the contrary, Sarin said none of the petitioners were receiving any signals from Tejpur Cable post 31 December, 2015 as the latter had removed the nodes through which the signals were being supplied to the LCOs.

Earlier, the Tribunal was told that all the LCOs had paid their dues to Tejpur Cable for the month of November 2015 (even though payments were made beyond the date as directed by the Tribunal).

As far as the dues of subscription fee for December 2015 were concerned, Sarin said only petitioner no.23 was in default. Sarin stated that petitioner nos. 10, 24 and 25 have “merged” and continued their relationship with Tejpur Cable. He further stated that except petitioner no. 23, all other petitioners had paid the subscription fees for December 2015 to Tejpur Cable by 12 January, 2016.

Tejpur Cable counsel Sharath Sampath said four among the petitioners – nos.2, 10, 23 and 25 – were in default stated in payment of subscription fees for December 2015.

But notwithstanding this, Sampath said Tejpur Cable was continuing the supply of its signals to all the petitioners including the four defaulters.

January 24, 2016
TDSAT rejects 3 LCOs’ application for STB deposit refund from Indusind

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has rejected applications by three local cable operators (LCOs) seeking refund from IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd of Rs 1100 per Set Top Box (STB). Of the Rs 1100, Rs 500 for each STB is allegedly the amount towards security deposit paid by respondents and another sum of Rs 600 per STB allegedly charged from the respondents from its customers as activation fee.

While noting that evidence in this regard would be examined in the three main cases by IndusInd against R S Cable, OM Cable, and Vipin Sehrawat and others, the clause of the agreement relating to security deposit shows it was at the discretion of Indusind.

Though the security deposit is refundable, as regards installation and activation charges, there is no clause for the refund of same. The only receipt produced by the applicants mentions a payment of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs.

TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “There is nothing to indicate that this payment was for security deposit. On the other hand, the statement annexed by the petitioner (Indusind) in its reply to the applications indicates this to be otherwise.”

Rejecting the LCOs’ applications, the Tribunal said, “In view of the contrary stands taken by the parties on facts, we feel that evidences will be required in this regard. At this stage, in the absence of sufficient material to support the claim of the applicants/respondents, we do not find that a sufficient case is made for direction to refund any amount. We, however, leave this question open for determination at the time of the trial.”

Indusind is a multi system operator (MSO) with a pan India presence, the respondents are LCOs. The petitioner came to the Tribunal challenging the migration of applicants/respondents to the network of another MSO.

In its interim appeal, it had asked for a direction to the LCOs to jointly return the STBs provided by it.

The Tribunal, by an order dated 5 November 2015, directed the LCOs to return all the STBs to Indusind. However, the question whether Indusind might be liable to make any payment for the returned STBs to the LCOs or to deposit an equal amount before the Tribunal, was left expressly open. The return of the STBs was to be overseen by an Advocate Commissioner that was appointed for the purpose. The advocate commissioner said the LCOs had returned 2290 STBs.

It was the case of the LCOs that they had paid a sum of Rs 1100 per STB and for the STBs that have been returned by them, these charges must be refunded by Indusind.

The reply to the application filed by Indusind says it only received installation charges of Rs 500 per STB from the LCOs on which it has even paid the service tax and the same is not refundable. In support of its pleadings, the MSO has annexed a statement titled “STB installation charge account” with its reply.

The LCOs have not provided any material to substantiate their claim except for a receipt of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs in case of Bunny Cable (respondent no. 1 in one of the three petitions). Indusind said the receipt of Rs 1,00,000 in regard of Bunny Cable is also towards installation charges and already accounted for in the statement annexed by it.

The LCOs argued that the agreement provides for a security deposit of Rs 500 per STB and the MSO would not have supplied the STBs without taking this.

According to clause 3.4 of the agreement between the MSO and the LCOs in all these petitions, the LCO was to collect rent, installment and security deposit in respect of the hardware/STBs from the subscribers and hand over the same to the petitioner.

In terms of the “Schedule A II. Standard Terms and Conditions,” the LCOs were required to deposit at the discretion of the MSO, an interest free and refundable security deposit of Rs 500 per STB.

January 24, 2016
TDSAT rejects 3 LCOs’ application for STB deposit refund from Indusind

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has rejected applications by three local cable operators (LCOs) seeking refund from IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd of Rs 1100 per Set Top Box (STB). Of the Rs 1100, Rs 500 for each STB is allegedly the amount towards security deposit paid by respondents and another sum of Rs 600 per STB allegedly charged from the respondents from its customers as activation fee.

While noting that evidence in this regard would be examined in the three main cases by IndusInd against R S Cable, OM Cable, and Vipin Sehrawat and others, the clause of the agreement relating to security deposit shows it was at the discretion of Indusind.

Though the security deposit is refundable, as regards installation and activation charges, there is no clause for the refund of same. The only receipt produced by the applicants mentions a payment of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs.

TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “There is nothing to indicate that this payment was for security deposit. On the other hand, the statement annexed by the petitioner (Indusind) in its reply to the applications indicates this to be otherwise.”

Rejecting the LCOs’ applications, the Tribunal said, “In view of the contrary stands taken by the parties on facts, we feel that evidences will be required in this regard. At this stage, in the absence of sufficient material to support the claim of the applicants/respondents, we do not find that a sufficient case is made for direction to refund any amount. We, however, leave this question open for determination at the time of the trial.”

Indusind is a multi system operator (MSO) with a pan India presence, the respondents are LCOs. The petitioner came to the Tribunal challenging the migration of applicants/respondents to the network of another MSO.

In its interim appeal, it had asked for a direction to the LCOs to jointly return the STBs provided by it.

The Tribunal, by an order dated 5 November 2015, directed the LCOs to return all the STBs to Indusind. However, the question whether Indusind might be liable to make any payment for the returned STBs to the LCOs or to deposit an equal amount before the Tribunal, was left expressly open. The return of the STBs was to be overseen by an Advocate Commissioner that was appointed for the purpose. The advocate commissioner said the LCOs had returned 2290 STBs.

It was the case of the LCOs that they had paid a sum of Rs 1100 per STB and for the STBs that have been returned by them, these charges must be refunded by Indusind.

The reply to the application filed by Indusind says it only received installation charges of Rs 500 per STB from the LCOs on which it has even paid the service tax and the same is not refundable. In support of its pleadings, the MSO has annexed a statement titled “STB installation charge account” with its reply.

The LCOs have not provided any material to substantiate their claim except for a receipt of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs in case of Bunny Cable (respondent no. 1 in one of the three petitions). Indusind said the receipt of Rs 1,00,000 in regard of Bunny Cable is also towards installation charges and already accounted for in the statement annexed by it.

The LCOs argued that the agreement provides for a security deposit of Rs 500 per STB and the MSO would not have supplied the STBs without taking this.

According to clause 3.4 of the agreement between the MSO and the LCOs in all these petitions, the LCO was to collect rent, installment and security deposit in respect of the hardware/STBs from the subscribers and hand over the same to the petitioner.

In terms of the “Schedule A II. Standard Terms and Conditions,” the LCOs were required to deposit at the discretion of the MSO, an interest free and refundable security deposit of Rs 500 per STB.

January 24, 2016