ITV

Tag: Kuldip Singh

  • 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.

  • Taj TV to supply signals to Grant Investrade after signing ICA

    Taj TV to supply signals to Grant Investrade after signing ICA

    NEW DELHI: Grant Investrade, which operates the headend-in-the-sky (HITS) brand NXT Digital, and Taj Television have arrived at an agreement.

     

    Taj Television will provide its signals to Grant Investrade as soon as an inter-connect agreement is signed.

     

    Stating this, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) noted however that the agreement will be “without prejudice to Grant’s rights and contentions with regard to those clauses.”

     

    Listing the case for 13 January, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava made this observation after counsel Salman Khurshid on behalf of Grant Investrade said his client had some reservations on two or three clauses of the agreement.

     

    Both counsels namely Pratibha Singh on behalf of Taj and Khurshid said there was broad agreement for supply of Zee channels as also for Turner channels and this would be signed this week.

     

    Singh accepted that the agreement would be signed “without prejudice to Grant’s rights and contentions with regard to those clauses.”

  • TDSAT rejects IndiaCast, MSM Discovery, Asianet petitions claiming dues from LCOs

    TDSAT rejects IndiaCast, MSM Discovery, Asianet petitions claiming dues from LCOs

    NEW DELHI: Sending out a clear signal to distributors and multi system operators (MSOs), the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has once again turned down three petitions seeking payment from a local cable operator (LCO) for the period for which the signals were sent even after expiry of a valid interconnect agreement.

     

    There were two cases of IndiaCast UTV Media Distribution and MSM Discovery against MSO S R Cable TV and one by Asianet Satellite Communication against Sathyadhara Communications.

     

    The cases against S R Cable were for recovery of the alleged dues of subscription fees amounting to Rs 3.01 lakh along with interest at 18 per cent and Rs 8.24 lakh along with interest at 18 per cent per annum respectively till the date of payment.

     

    The case of Asianet was for recovery of Rs 1.30 crore allegedly payable by Sathyadhara towards balance of carriage fees for the year 2012-13 and a further sum of Rs 20.47 lakh as interest at 18 per cent p.a. for the delay in payment of the carriage fees.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said, “The alleged supply of signals by IndiaCast to the respondent after the expiry of the interconnect agreement was plainly in contravention of the statutory Regulations. Having acted in breach of the Regulations, it cannot seek the help of the judicial process and realise its dues through the process of court.”

     

    The petitions against S R Cable were dismissed with cost of Rs 5,000 payable to the TDSAT Employees Welfare Society.

     

    It was in the case of IndiaCast that the LCO executed an interconnect agreement with it on 1 June, 2011 for the period 1 April, 2011 to 31 March under which IndiaCast was to supply the TV channels controlled by it on behalf of its principal broadcasters on payment of Rs 21 lakh as the monthly subscription fee.

     

    IndiaCast said it supplied the TV channels to the LCO in terms of the agreement and regularly raised invoices for payment of the monthly subscription fee. The LCO, however, defaulted in payments as a result of which dues accumulated. Finally on 1 August, 2014 IndiaCast discontinued the supply of its signals to the respondent.

     

    IndiaCast claimed it sent reminders and legal notice demanding the payment of its dues but as no payment was made by the LCO, the petition was filed on 5 August, 2014.

     

    TDSAT proceeded ex parte as the LCO did not appear despite service of notice.

     

    The Tribunal took note of the fact that IndiaCast had sought to fill this gap by a miscellaneous application on 23 February this year by stating that the LCO was required to pay an amount of Rs 25.20 lakh exclusive of taxes annually towards the subscription fee calculated on the basis of the said Subscription Agreement for 12 months, but the LCO on several occasions requested IndiaCast to continue to provide the signals even after the expiry of the previous agreement and gave the oral assurances that the fresh agreements will be executed between the parties. It is stated that “the parties were negotiating for the renewal of the agreement and basis the negotiation process, the petitioner continued to provide the signals.”

     

    The Tribunal rejected as “misconceived” the arguments sought to be raised to the effect that the LCO was bound by law and was liable under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 as they cannot apply to the present case.

     

    Similarly, the Tribunal said the amendments made early this year do not help it.

     

    “IndiaCast would indeed be entitled to recover any dues pertaining to the period of the agreement that came to end on 31 March, 2012 but it is not the case that the dues pertain to that period nor from the statement of account it is discernible whether or not there were any dues on the date the agreement came to end,” the Tribunal noted.

     

    It added that clause 8 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 (Regulations) provides for the maximum period of three months for negotiations for renewal of existing agreements and clause 4A (introduced in the Regulations with effect from 17 March, 2009 prohibits a broadcaster or a distributor of TV channels to make available signals of TV channels to any distributor without entering into a written interconnect agreement.”

     

    In the MSM petition, the interconnect agreement was for the period 1 January, 2011 to 31 December, 2011 under which MSM was to supply the TV channels controlled by it on behalf of its principal broadcasters on payment of Rs 1.25 lakh as the monthly subscription fee. MSM said it supplied the TV channels to the MSO and regularly raised invoices for payment of the monthly subscription fee. The MSO defaulted in payments as a result of which dues accumulated. Finally on 17 December, 2012 MSM discontinued the supply of its signals to the respondent.

     

    In the Asianet case, a carriage agreement dated 8 August, 2011 was signed between the parties for one year from 1 September, 2011 to 31 August, 2012 to carry and retransmit signals of Darshana TV channel of the respondent for an amount of Rs 60 lakh per year exclusive of taxes. The dispute pertains to a period starting from 1 September, 2012 till the disconnection of carriage of signals by the respondent on 20 November, 2013.

  • 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.

  • HITS to be treated at par with pan-India MSOs; TDSAT advises TRAI to frame consolidated Broadcasting Code

    HITS to be treated at par with pan-India MSOs; TDSAT advises TRAI to frame consolidated Broadcasting Code

    NEW DELHI: In a judgment expected to have far reaching consequences on the Indian broadcasting industry, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today said that headend-in-the-sky (HITS) players should be treated on the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs) for commercial purposes.
     

    In a judgment on a petition filed by the Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) against Media Pro and others, the Tribunal said its judgment would come into effect from 31 March, 2016 by which time the relevant reference interconnect offers will be revised wherever necessary.

    The Tribunal said, “It is difficult to see a HITS operator as different from a pan-India MSO and in our considered view a HITS operator, in regard to the commercial terms for an interconnect arrangement has to be taken at par with a pan-India MSO and must, therefore, receive the same treatment.”

    Expectedly, the judgment will also help Hinduja Group’s HITS platform NXT Digital, which entered into the fray earlier this year.

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said both Star and Taj, as well as the other broadcasters who have joined the proceedings as intervenors are directed to issue fresh RIOs in compliance with the Interconnect Regulations, as explained in the judgment within one month from the date this order becomes operational and effective. It will be then open to NSTPL to execute fresh interconnect agreements with Star and Taj, and with any other broadcasters on the basis of their respective RIOs or on negotiated terms within the limits.

     
    Star and Taj will have to execute fresh interconnect agreements with the petitioner within two weeks from the date of issuance of their fresh RIOs. The agreement with Star would relate back to 30 October, 2015 and with Taj to 30 June, 2015. The issuance of the fresh RIOs by the broadcasters will also give right to other distributors of channels with whom the broadcasters may be in interconnect agreement to have their agreements modified in terms of clause 13.2A.7.
     

    NSTPL had executed an RIO based agreement with Media Pro. At that time, it did not complain before the Tribunal that it was being forced into the RIO based agreement even though it had ample opportunity to do so as the Media Pro application was pending before the Tribunal. Later on, after Media Pro ceased to be an agent of the broadcasters, NSTPL, even after filing the present petition, signed RIO based agreements both with Star and Taj. The agreement with Star was for the period upto 30 July, 2015 and the two agreements with Taj were upto 31 March, 2015.
     

    NSTPL must, therefore, be held bound by those agreements till the periods of those agreements and further, three months beyond that in terms of clause 8 of the Interconnect agreement. After those dates (29 October in case of Star and 30 June in case of Taj) the arrangement will be governed by the fresh agreements.

    The Tribunal said the non-discrimination obligation, which TRAI acknowledges as the pivot of those regulations, appears inconsistent with a regime where parties are allowed full latitude to mutually negotiate their agreements and also not disclose the commercial terms of the agreement to other market participants.
     

    There is the obligation to frame a meaningful RIO in which all bouquet and a la carte rates are specified, and there is also some room for mutual negotiation (even on rates) within certain specified parameters. This will achieve the objective of introducing a transparent non-discriminatory regime whereby distributors can obtain access to content, while still retaining some latitude to mutually negotiate the terms and conditions of access. It will also make the nexus between a la carte and bouquet rates, which the regulator thought fit to introduce, applicable to all mutually negotiated agreements. Negotiations must be within the parameters to those mandatory.

     
    At the same time, TDSAT said it was conscious that the present judgment may unsettle the way in which various parties in the broadcasting sector have entered into existing agreements. “We are further conscious that while the TRAI has taken a position broadly in line with our conclusions in this case, that has not always been the case. As the Amicus Curiae and the counsel for the Petitioner have pointed out, the positions taken by TRAI in the past have not always been fully consistent. In particular, we note the observation of TRAI in Consultation Paper No.15 / 2008 that in view of the confidentiality restrictions, the automatic implementation of non-discrimination clause in Interconnect Regulation is practically difficult,” it said.
     

    Thus, as far back as 2008, TRAI was aware that the non-discrimination clause – which, in these proceedings, it has sought to place on a very high pedestal – was effectively inoperative. And yet, matters in the broadcasting sector have been allowed to lie where they are by TRAI.
     

    TDSAT said it had on past occasions as well, made similar suggestions with the hope of nudging the Regulator to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the Regulations. At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia.
     

    This was the reason for suspending the operation of this judgment till 31 March, 2016. The judgment shall take effect on 1 April, 2016. “While we are aware that this is not a common procedure, we are of the view that it is appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since the effect of this judgment may be to unsettle a number of existing agreements and necessitate re-negotiation,” the Tribunal said.
     

    In the meanwhile it will be open to TRAI to undertake a comprehensive restructuring of the Regulations, which would hopefully clarify many of the issues that arise in these proceedings. “We make it clear that this Tribunal is issuing no such direction to TRAI. The delayed operation of the judgment is only to afford an opportunity to TRAI to consider the matter and act in the intervening period, if appropriate,” it further added.
     

    As a greater part of the country would come under the DAS regime with effect from 1 January, 2016 the Tribunal said it would be advisable that TRAI should try to frame a consolidated Broadcasting Code instead of the large number of Regulations dealing with different aspects of the service and each having undergone numerous amendments. In order to make a serious effort in that direction, TRAI would be required to get hold of all the negotiated interconnect agreements between the broadcasters and the distributors of channels, which the broadcasters are in any event obliged to submit to TRAI. The Regulator may even feel the need to take a re-look at the tariff orders framed by it.

     
    Needless to add that in case TRAI issues any fresh Regulations before 1 April, 2016, the petitioner and the broadcasters would be obliged to execute agreements on that basis. In case, however, no fresh Regulations are issued by TRAI, this judgment and order will come into effect from the aforesaid date and the parties would be obliged to follow the directions give above.

    Suspension of this judgment is in the larger interest of the broadcasting sector. But this leaves open the question of the petitioner’s liability to pay licence fees to the broadcasters Star and Taj for their signals received by it during the pendency of the petitions before the Tribunal and further until execution of fresh agreements in terms of this judgment or in terms of fresh Regulations, if any, framed by TRAI. And since it will not be fair that the broadcasters should continue to supply signals to the petitioner without any payment for the next several months, some interim arrangement under which the petitioner should make payment of licence fees to the two broadcasters until after execution of fresh agreements accounts are finally reconciled. For this purpose, the petition against the broadcasters was de-tagged from this judgment and kept pending.
     

    Star has already filed an application in Petition No. 314 (C) of 2015 claiming the dues of licence fees from the petitioner. Petition No. 526 (C) of 2015 is directed to be tagged with Petition No. 314 (C) of 2015. In these two petitions, the Tribunal proposes to determine the Petitioner’s liability to pay the license fees to Star and Taj on an ad hoc basis and as an interim measure until the execution of the agreements with the two broadcasters, and when the accounts of the two sides may be reconciled to determine any final liability of the Petitioner or Respondents to make any further payments.
     

    It also made clear that all future deals between broadcasters and MSO/HITS players will be bound by the RIO agreements.

     
    While the case was initially filed against Media Pro in mid-2014, NSTPL had subsequently in December last year filed another petition against Star India and Taj TV.
     

    Since the issues in both petitions were similar and any judgment would affect the broadcasting sector as a whole, TDSAT had on 30 July this year issued a public notice asking all stakeholders to present their case on the issues involved.
     

    In an earlier case in 2013 between NSTPL and Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. TDSAT had on 12 September, 2013 directed Media Pro to provide signals of its TV channels to NSTPL.
     

    Later, NSTPL moved the Tribunal against Media Pro in which Taj Television Ltd and Star India Private Limited were brought in. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was also a party in the two petitions of 2014.

     
    The first petition 10 July, 2014, NSTPL raised some questions regarding RIO and wanted the Tribunal to declare Clause 3.2 of The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation 2004, as amended from time to time should mandate that all distributors be offered the same rate per subscriber per month which is the rate specified in the broadcaster’s RIO, unless the conditions of Clause 3.6 of Interconnection Regulation are fulfilled.

     
    It also wanted declaration in terms of Clause 3.6 of Interconnect Regulation to the effect that any discounted volume related scheme must be disclosed in a transparent manner, so as to enable the similarly placed distributors to avail of the same.
     

    It demanded that Media Pro be directed to disclose the volume related schemes at which it offers TV channel signals to distributors that are similarly placed with NSTPL and permit NSTPL to avail of such schemes.
     

    The second petition on 12 December, 2014 was against Taj and TRAI, which impugned the disconnection measures that had been initiated by Taj against NSTPL on account of alleged defaults like non-payment of certain amounts of subscription fees.

  • TDSAT permits LCO to seek TV signals directly from distributor

    TDSAT permits LCO to seek TV signals directly from distributor

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has said that SRE Digital Cable Communications is entitled in law to ask Sun TV for supply of signals directly despite the fact that it has been receiving these signals from another multi system operator (MSO).

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said however that this is subject to the operator satisfying the conditions mandated in the Regulations.

     

    Listing the matter for 21 December, the Tribunal said, “It will be open to Sun Distribution Services Pvt Ltd to make an inspection of the LCO’s system and to be satisfied that it is compliant with the regulatory norms.”

     

    On the next date, the LCO’s counsel Sujeet Kumar Mishra will also produce the invoices of A.C.T. Digital with the materials showing that payments are duly made against those invoices.

          

    The Tribunal also noted that the area in which the petitioner is operating is to come under the DAS regime in the third phase from 1 January, 2016. “It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the petitioner would have a digital head-end in place. As a matter of fact, Mr. Mishra states that such is the position and the petitioner is capable of retransmitting any signals, including those received from SUN in digital mode.”

     

    However, it said that Sun could not be denied the request to examine the systems.

     

    In pursuance of the order passed on 29 October, Sun counsel Abhishek Malhotra filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner is receiving Sun’s signals from A.C.T. Digital. 

     

    Mishra admitted to the Tribunal that the petitioner had been receiving Sun’s signals from A.C.T. Digital from the month of November 2015. “Evidently, the earlier statements made on behalf of the petitioner were not correct,” the Tribunal noted.

  • TDSAT issues bailable arrest warrants against two directors of Sahara India TV Network

    TDSAT issues bailable arrest warrants against two directors of Sahara India TV Network

    New Delhi: In a power rarely exercised by it, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has issued a bailable warrant of arrest against Sahara India TV Network Directors Govind Tiwari and Devendra Kumar Srivastava in a case of non-payment of dues to multi-system operator Delhi Distribution Company.  

     

    Listing the matter for 22 December, Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said: “From the earlier orders, it appears that the Directors of the company are willfully flouting the directions of this Tribunal. The Tribunal is, therefore, left with no option but to secure their presence through coercive measures.” 

     

    It was also noted that neither the details of moveable and immoveable properties of the company were filed nor any payment being made towards the discharge of the decree. 

     

    Sahara India counsel Pankaj Agarwal who was present said he had been instructed that he would be handed over the cheque to be handed over to the MSO but was later told no cheque was being sent.

     

    The TDSAT office was directed to issue bailable warrants of arrest on the addresses being furnished by MSO Counsel Vibhav Srivastava to ensure their personal appearance on the next date fixed in the matter.

  • Durgapur MSO assures Star India and TDSAT it would rectify errors in its head-end

    Durgapur MSO assures Star India and TDSAT it would rectify errors in its head-end

    New Delhi: Durgapur-based multi-system operator Akash Tori Infocom Services Pvt Ltd has assured the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal  (TDSAT) that it will rectify the errors in its system pointed out by Star India.
     
    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava adjourned the matter to 11 December for further hearing after hearing counsel for both sides.
     
    TDSAT had on 4 November directed the MSO to make it convenient for Star India to examine its headends in Durgapur. Accordingly, Star India had conducted a technical audit. Some shortcomings were found and this was conveyed to the MSO by Star India in a letter.
     
    Akash Tori counsel Radhika Gupta admitted that shortcomings have been found in relation to set top boxes.
     
    Star India counsel Arjun Natarajan said the audit had revealed that Akash Tori’s Subscriber Management System (SMS) is not integrated with CAS for activation/deactivation of STB, which are not possible from SMS. Furthermore, the basic addressable features in STB, like channel encryption, package activation/deactivation are not available. Natarajan also said fingerprinting and OSD or messaging is not happening in STBs.
     
    Star India asked Akash Tori to rectify the shortcomings and after rectification, it said Akash Tori may either approach Star India for a re-audit, or go for an audit by Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd.
     
    Ms Gupta said she would seek instructions from her client in this regard and take appropriate steps. The MSO had filed a petition seeking Star’s signals in digital mode on RIO terms. 
     
    In the earlier hearing on 4 November, TDSAT was informed by Akash Tori counsel Radhika Gupta that the MSO had not yet received some set top boxes 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.
  • Sun asked to sign provisional agreement and commence signals to MSO

    Sun asked to sign provisional agreement and commence signals to MSO

    New Delhi: Sun Network has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to enter into a provisional interconnect agreement with multi system operator Balu Cable Network and commence supply of signals.

     

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh felt that the order was proper and appropriate considering much time has already lapsed.

     

    The Tribunal said: “We note that this petition was filed on 28 May 2015 and it is lingering on, on some pretext or the other. The request on behalf of the respondent for making physical verification of the petitioner’s SLR cannot be disallowed.”  

     

    Listing the matter for 14 December, the Tribunal said Sun Network may make a physical verification of the petitioner’s SLR and submit its report on completion of the verification.

     

    Thereafter, the Tribunal will pass further orders, the bench said.

  • TDSAT directs Taj TV to not disconnect Indusind signals in DAS & non-DAS areas

    TDSAT directs Taj TV to not disconnect Indusind signals in DAS & non-DAS areas

    NEW DELHI: Taj Television (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai was today directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) not to give effect to the disconnection order in Digital Addressable System (DAS) and non-DAS areas against IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd if the latter makes payment according to formulas drawn up by the Tribunal as an interim arrangement.

     

    Under the order for DAS areas, Indusind counsel Vandana D. Jaisingh handed over to Taj TV counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia four cheques amounting to Rs 5.42 crore. In addition, Indusind will pay Rs 10 crore by 2 November, Rs 5 crore by 9 November and Rs 10 crore by 30 November, 2015.

     

    Admitting both cases and posting them before the Registrar’s court on 18 December for completion of pleadings, the Tribunal made clear that the directions are towards earlier dues as far as DAS areas are concerned. 

     

    In addition, Indusind must make payments of the invoices raised by Taj TV for the months of October and November this year for DAS areas.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said the payments made in terms of this interim order will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

     

    In the case relating to non-DAS areas, the Tribunal asked Indusind to make immediate payment of the outstanding dues up to 30 September subject to verification by reconciliation of accounts.

     

    Taj TV had issued the disconnection notice as it claimed that dues amounted to Rs 9.58 crore till 31 October but this was disputed by Indusind, which submitted that it had made already payment of Rs 2.26 crore and was entitled to pay for October by 15 November.

     

    However, Taj said the amount was arrived at after taking the amounting already paid into account.

     

    The Tribunal directed Indusind to go to the respondent’s Mumbai office on 3 November for this purpose.

     

    Following the reconciliation of accounts, the Tribunal said Indusind will pay the dues up to 30 September by6 November. The invoice for the month of October 2015 will be paid by 15 November.

     

    Bhatia accepted notice on behalf of Taj TV for both petitions and was asked to file the reply within three weeks from today (30 October). Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

     

    The agreement under which Indusind receives its signals from Taj TV came to end on 31 March but the latter continued to supply signals and Indusind continued to receive the signals and re-transmit them to its affiliates without any renewal of agreement and under the pretext that negotiations for the renewal of the agreement is going on between the two sides.  

     

    The matter finally came to a head when Taj TV gave disconnection notices for disconnection of its supply of signals to the petitioner. The disconnection notices are based on grounds of non-payment of dues and non-renewal of the interconnect agreement. In the notice, the dues are quantified at Rs 36.44 crore upto 30 September. The amount of dues mentioned in the disconnection notice relate only to the monthly subscription fees.

     

    Jaisingh disputed the amount mentioned in the disconnection notices. According to her, the admitted dues amount to Rs 24.85 crore. She contended that after the expiry of the agreement, the respondent is unauthorisedly raising invoices increasing the rate by more than 10 per cent from the rate mentioned in the previous agreement. 

     

    Bhatia said the invoices from April 2015 onwards had been raised strictly in terms of the provisions of the agreement. 

     

    The Tribunal felt that the submission of Bhatia “appears to be prima facie correct but we do not wish to make any conclusive pronouncement on that aspect of the matter at this stage.”