Tag: Kunal Tandon

  • TDSAT asks Ortel to adhere to time schedule in payments to IndiaCast, stop piracy

    TDSAT asks Ortel to adhere to time schedule in payments to IndiaCast, stop piracy

    NEW DELHI:Ortel Communications has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to adhere to the time schedule for furnishing SMS report to IndiaCast Distribution by the seventh of the succeeding month and will also adhere to the payment schedule for the same.

    Member B B Srivastava In his order of 9 August 2016 also directed that Ortel should file its reply with regards to the allegation of piracy within 10 days and a rejoinder, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.

    Listing the matter for 1 September, the Tribunal said the matter regarding IRD boxes must be settled, as submitted before the Tribunal, within 10 days.

    IndiaCast counsel Kunal Tandon said a reply in the main petition has been filed and so Ortel was asked to file its rejoinder within two weeks.

    The orders came on a miscellaneous application filed by IndiaCast to restrain Ortel from retransmitting the former’s signals in Jaleswar, Jagatsinghpur, Rambha, Chatrapur and Balugaon in unauthorized and illegal manner, and for directions to Ortel to clear entire outstanding dues to the tune of Rs 4,15,180 for the illegal dissemination of the signals in the areas of Berhampur, Rourkela, Jagatsinghpur, Puri, Jaleswar, Nimapara, Bhadarak Town, Rambha, Chatrapur and Balugaon for the relevant period during which the signals have been illegally and in unauthorized manner and/or continues to be illegally retransmitted by Ortel.

    Tandon made submissions with regard to non-compliance of the direction of the Tribunal regarding payment of May and June 2016 as well as regarding clarification of issues with regard to IRD boxes. He again re-emphasized the issue of piracy by Ortel in areas where they are not permitted to retransmit the signals. However, this issue relating to piracy was disputed by Ortel and assured the payment of the monthly subscription fee for the months of May and June in view of the order of 25 April 2016.

  • TDSAT asks Ortel to adhere to time schedule in payments to IndiaCast, stop piracy

    TDSAT asks Ortel to adhere to time schedule in payments to IndiaCast, stop piracy

    NEW DELHI:Ortel Communications has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to adhere to the time schedule for furnishing SMS report to IndiaCast Distribution by the seventh of the succeeding month and will also adhere to the payment schedule for the same.

    Member B B Srivastava In his order of 9 August 2016 also directed that Ortel should file its reply with regards to the allegation of piracy within 10 days and a rejoinder, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.

    Listing the matter for 1 September, the Tribunal said the matter regarding IRD boxes must be settled, as submitted before the Tribunal, within 10 days.

    IndiaCast counsel Kunal Tandon said a reply in the main petition has been filed and so Ortel was asked to file its rejoinder within two weeks.

    The orders came on a miscellaneous application filed by IndiaCast to restrain Ortel from retransmitting the former’s signals in Jaleswar, Jagatsinghpur, Rambha, Chatrapur and Balugaon in unauthorized and illegal manner, and for directions to Ortel to clear entire outstanding dues to the tune of Rs 4,15,180 for the illegal dissemination of the signals in the areas of Berhampur, Rourkela, Jagatsinghpur, Puri, Jaleswar, Nimapara, Bhadarak Town, Rambha, Chatrapur and Balugaon for the relevant period during which the signals have been illegally and in unauthorized manner and/or continues to be illegally retransmitted by Ortel.

    Tandon made submissions with regard to non-compliance of the direction of the Tribunal regarding payment of May and June 2016 as well as regarding clarification of issues with regard to IRD boxes. He again re-emphasized the issue of piracy by Ortel in areas where they are not permitted to retransmit the signals. However, this issue relating to piracy was disputed by Ortel and assured the payment of the monthly subscription fee for the months of May and June in view of the order of 25 April 2016.

  • TDSAT asks MSO to pay Rs 6 lakh and reconcile accounts with Indiacast UTV

    TDSAT asks MSO to pay Rs 6 lakh and reconcile accounts with Indiacast UTV

    NEW DELHI: Vishal Cable Network has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay Rs six lakh in two installments to lndiacast UTV Media Distribution Pvt.Ltd by 5 August 2016.

    In his order on 28 July 2016, member B B Srivastava had said the first installment of Rs three lakh would be paid immediately and the next Rs three lakh by % August 2016, by which date the two sides should meet and reconcile their accounts.

    Indiacast Counsel Kunal Tandon told the Tribunal that the signals had been disconnected on 15 June 2016 and the arrears had mounted to Rs 9,12•,935.

    Fixing the matter for 30 August 2016, the Tribunal said The respondent is also directed toundertake audit of the system of the petitioner and complete it by the next date fixed.

    Earlier, Vishal Cable counsel Vikram Singh submiteds he did not appear on 3 Jue 2016 as no notice was given by the Registry due to inadvertence. As a result, the Tribunal had recalled theinterim protection granted to the petitioner by the order of 19 August last year.

  • TDSAT asks MSO to pay Rs 6 lakh and reconcile accounts with Indiacast UTV

    TDSAT asks MSO to pay Rs 6 lakh and reconcile accounts with Indiacast UTV

    NEW DELHI: Vishal Cable Network has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay Rs six lakh in two installments to lndiacast UTV Media Distribution Pvt.Ltd by 5 August 2016.

    In his order on 28 July 2016, member B B Srivastava had said the first installment of Rs three lakh would be paid immediately and the next Rs three lakh by % August 2016, by which date the two sides should meet and reconcile their accounts.

    Indiacast Counsel Kunal Tandon told the Tribunal that the signals had been disconnected on 15 June 2016 and the arrears had mounted to Rs 9,12•,935.

    Fixing the matter for 30 August 2016, the Tribunal said The respondent is also directed toundertake audit of the system of the petitioner and complete it by the next date fixed.

    Earlier, Vishal Cable counsel Vikram Singh submiteds he did not appear on 3 Jue 2016 as no notice was given by the Registry due to inadvertence. As a result, the Tribunal had recalled theinterim protection granted to the petitioner by the order of 19 August last year.

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

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

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed  Canara Star Communications Pvt Ltd Karnataka, to pay to Star India a sum of Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal up to 3 March 2016.

    Chairman  Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said “These payments are interim and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party.”

    Rejecting the plea by the multi-system operator that it was entitled to a further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs, the tribunal fixed the matter for further hearing on 19 April.

    The tribunal noted that there is no material to prima facie substantiate this assertion and saw no reason to allow any further reduction in the dues which the petitioner could be liable to pay to the respondent as an interim measure.

    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 were 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.  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, 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 not only Kumta and Bhatkal but Bangalore also. A comprehensive settlement, as desired by Star India could not take place and the matter came back to the tribunal.

    The subscription agreement between the parties relating to Kumta and Bhatkal came to end on 31 June 2015.  Under the subscription agreement, the petitioner was liable to pay the monthly subscription fee at the rate of Rs.2,60,081 per month for Kumta and Rs.2,10,716 per month for Bhatkal.  In February 2015 when the petition was filed before the Tribunal the dues against the petitioner amounted to Rs.32.95 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. By order of 3 February 2015, the petitioner was directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount in two installments subject to which Star India was directed not to disconnect the supply of its signals to Canara Star. Thereafter, the MSO had made some further payments of admitted dues in terms of orders passed by the tribunal from time to time and it continues to receive the signals for transmission in those areas.

    No fresh subscription agreement has so far been executed between the parties.

    According to the respondent, at the rate fixed under the expired agreement, its dues against the MSO now amount to Rs.48.94 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. Star India counsel Kunal Tandon however submitted that in course of the mediation proceedings, Star India had agreed to give the MSO a discount of Rs.1,07,305 per month for Kumta area and Rs.67,703 for Bhatkal area with effect from November 2014.  He submitted that if computations are made taking into account the discount to which the respondent had agreed and computing the monthly subscription fees after allowing the discounts, the dues would come to Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal upto 31.03.2016.

    However, Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh wanted further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs.

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

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

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed  Canara Star Communications Pvt Ltd Karnataka, to pay to Star India a sum of Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal up to 3 March 2016.

    Chairman  Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said “These payments are interim and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party.”

    Rejecting the plea by the multi-system operator that it was entitled to a further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs, the tribunal fixed the matter for further hearing on 19 April.

    The tribunal noted that there is no material to prima facie substantiate this assertion and saw no reason to allow any further reduction in the dues which the petitioner could be liable to pay to the respondent as an interim measure.

    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 were 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.  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, 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 not only Kumta and Bhatkal but Bangalore also. A comprehensive settlement, as desired by Star India could not take place and the matter came back to the tribunal.

    The subscription agreement between the parties relating to Kumta and Bhatkal came to end on 31 June 2015.  Under the subscription agreement, the petitioner was liable to pay the monthly subscription fee at the rate of Rs.2,60,081 per month for Kumta and Rs.2,10,716 per month for Bhatkal.  In February 2015 when the petition was filed before the Tribunal the dues against the petitioner amounted to Rs.32.95 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. By order of 3 February 2015, the petitioner was directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount in two installments subject to which Star India was directed not to disconnect the supply of its signals to Canara Star. Thereafter, the MSO had made some further payments of admitted dues in terms of orders passed by the tribunal from time to time and it continues to receive the signals for transmission in those areas.

    No fresh subscription agreement has so far been executed between the parties.

    According to the respondent, at the rate fixed under the expired agreement, its dues against the MSO now amount to Rs.48.94 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal. Star India counsel Kunal Tandon however submitted that in course of the mediation proceedings, Star India had agreed to give the MSO a discount of Rs.1,07,305 per month for Kumta area and Rs.67,703 for Bhatkal area with effect from November 2014.  He submitted that if computations are made taking into account the discount to which the respondent had agreed and computing the monthly subscription fees after allowing the discounts, the dues would come to Rs.18.91 lakhs for both Kumta and Bhatkal upto 31.03.2016.

    However, Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh wanted further reduction of 15 per cent in the monthly subscription amount fixed under the expired agreements as a result of the setting aside of the Tariff Order by TRAI that allowed 15 per cent enhancement to the MSOs.

  • TDSAT asks Canara Star for payment plan to clear Star India’s arrears

    TDSAT asks Canara Star for payment plan to clear Star India’s arrears

    NEW DELHI: Canara Star has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to present a payment schedule to Star India to settle their long-pending dispute.

    However, TDSAT 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 about Rs 3 crore pertaining to the MSO’s operations in the Digital Addressable System (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 that the parties had failed to resolve the dispute, though Star India counsels 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 Star for payment plan to clear Star India’s arrears

    TDSAT asks Canara Star for payment plan to clear Star India’s arrears

    NEW DELHI: Canara Star has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to present a payment schedule to Star India to settle their long-pending dispute.

    However, TDSAT 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 about Rs 3 crore pertaining to the MSO’s operations in the Digital Addressable System (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 that the parties had failed to resolve the dispute, though Star India counsels 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 directs BECIL to re-audit Digicable’s headend

    TDSAT directs BECIL to re-audit Digicable’s headend

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has asked the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd (BECIL) to make a further audit of Digicable Network India’s system on whether there is a foolproof and tamper proof mechanism to truly and faithfully record the number of subscribers receiving the signals at Ahmedabad in case the feed of signals is taken from the Delhi headend to that city.

     

    The Tribunal, which had earlier asked BECIL to conduct an audit of Digicable Network and received its report, gave this direction on a petition by Digicable seeking transmission of digital addressable system signals of IndiaCast Distribution to Ahmedabad.

     

    Listing the matter for 29 January, TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava asked BECIL to submit the report within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

     

    The Tribunal was not satisfied with the contentions of Digicable counsel Diggaj Pathak, who had relied upon the paragraph in the earlier BECIL petition making note of the unique package ID, which he said would sufficiently record the number of subscribers in Ahmedabad even though the feed may be taken from the Delhi headend.

     

    BECIL may also indicate the position in regard to the Gospel CAS, which finds mention in its earlier report, the Tribunal said.

     

    Pathak submitted that in case IndiaCast was not willing to execute an agreement on negotiated terms, it must still provide the signals of its channels to Digicable on its RIO terms in as much as the latter had expressed its willingness to execute the agreement based on the respondent’s RIO.

     

    IndiaCast objected to giving its signals to Digicable for retransmission in Gujarat on a number of grounds, one of which relate to the alleged lacuna in Digicable’s technical system.

     

    The Tribunal decided to presently leave aside other objections raised by IndiaCast (including non-payment of its dues) and only deal with the issue of the technical lacuna in the petitioner’s system. 

     

    The Tribunal noted that the earlier audit by BECIL was on a petition by Digicable last year against a notice of disconnection issued by IndiaCast, and the Tribunal had asked BECIL to examine Digicable headend. The report was given on 21 August. Even as the BECIL’s report was received before the Tribunal, it had been represented that the parties had resolved their disputes bilaterally and the petition filed by the Digicable was withdrawn.

     

    Digicable executed an interconnect agreement with IndiaCast on its behalf and on behalf of a number of its JV companies for retransmission of IndiaCast signals in different DAS areas in the country. The licence fee under this agreement is payable on CPS basis and does not cover Gujarat. 

     

    Pathak submitted that Digicable will take the feed of the signals from its headend located in Delhi to Ahmedabad for retransmission there. 

     

    IndiaCast counsel Kunal Tandon said the earlier report had shown that there is no proper bifurcation of subscribers or set-top-boxes (STBs) on the basis of locations of the petitioner’s CAS in Delhi. 

  • TDSAT directs BECIL to re-audit Digicable’s headend

    TDSAT directs BECIL to re-audit Digicable’s headend

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has asked the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd (BECIL) to make a further audit of Digicable Network India’s system on whether there is a foolproof and tamper proof mechanism to truly and faithfully record the number of subscribers receiving the signals at Ahmedabad in case the feed of signals is taken from the Delhi headend to that city.

     

    The Tribunal, which had earlier asked BECIL to conduct an audit of Digicable Network and received its report, gave this direction on a petition by Digicable seeking transmission of digital addressable system signals of IndiaCast Distribution to Ahmedabad.

     

    Listing the matter for 29 January, TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava asked BECIL to submit the report within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

     

    The Tribunal was not satisfied with the contentions of Digicable counsel Diggaj Pathak, who had relied upon the paragraph in the earlier BECIL petition making note of the unique package ID, which he said would sufficiently record the number of subscribers in Ahmedabad even though the feed may be taken from the Delhi headend.

     

    BECIL may also indicate the position in regard to the Gospel CAS, which finds mention in its earlier report, the Tribunal said.

     

    Pathak submitted that in case IndiaCast was not willing to execute an agreement on negotiated terms, it must still provide the signals of its channels to Digicable on its RIO terms in as much as the latter had expressed its willingness to execute the agreement based on the respondent’s RIO.

     

    IndiaCast objected to giving its signals to Digicable for retransmission in Gujarat on a number of grounds, one of which relate to the alleged lacuna in Digicable’s technical system.

     

    The Tribunal decided to presently leave aside other objections raised by IndiaCast (including non-payment of its dues) and only deal with the issue of the technical lacuna in the petitioner’s system. 

     

    The Tribunal noted that the earlier audit by BECIL was on a petition by Digicable last year against a notice of disconnection issued by IndiaCast, and the Tribunal had asked BECIL to examine Digicable headend. The report was given on 21 August. Even as the BECIL’s report was received before the Tribunal, it had been represented that the parties had resolved their disputes bilaterally and the petition filed by the Digicable was withdrawn.

     

    Digicable executed an interconnect agreement with IndiaCast on its behalf and on behalf of a number of its JV companies for retransmission of IndiaCast signals in different DAS areas in the country. The licence fee under this agreement is payable on CPS basis and does not cover Gujarat. 

     

    Pathak submitted that Digicable will take the feed of the signals from its headend located in Delhi to Ahmedabad for retransmission there. 

     

    IndiaCast counsel Kunal Tandon said the earlier report had shown that there is no proper bifurcation of subscribers or set-top-boxes (STBs) on the basis of locations of the petitioner’s CAS in Delhi.