ITV

Tag: Mumbai HC

  • Mumbai HC postpones CAS hearings to June

    Mumbai HC postpones CAS hearings to June

    MUMBAI: Even the courts appear to be waiting for the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) offer some clarity of the vexed issue of conditional access. On 30 January, the Mumbai High Court postponed its hearing on several CAS cases to June.

    While deferring the hearing, the court noted that Trai has been mandated to settle complicated issues involved with the cable ops and the broadcasters. However the HC has also stated that it has not stayed the implementation of CAS in the city.

    Readers may recall that no sooner had Trai been appointed to regulate the cable industry than it went into high gear. Last month Trai had released a “consultation note” for the industry freezing the prices of cable services in respect of free to air (FTA) and pay channels as on 26 December 2003 for all areas. Trai had indicated that it wanted written responses by 30 January. It wanted clarity on issues such as norms for fixing rates (or ceiling rates). Another issue is whether the distribution of free-to-air channels; should be uniform in areas under CAS and non-CAS areas. The Indian Broadcaster’s Foundation (IBF) responded asking Trai to leave revenue aspects to the market forces.

    Meanwhile, consumer organisations in Mumbai are a divided lot. One side that includes the Consumer Action Network filed petitions in favour of CAS. On the other side Citizens For a Just Society have opposed the legislation. In Chennai which was the first city to undergo the CAS process the going has not been smooth on account of distribution bottlenecks.

    There were complaints from Chennai consumers that pay broadcasters like ESPN Star Sports were asking subscribers to sign an agreement for a year failing which they would not receive signals.

    With elections at hand, politics has come into play as well with Tamil Nadu chief minister and recent entrant into the NDA fold Jayalalitha telling I&B minister Ravi Shankar Prasad that she wanted CAS to be withdrawn.

    Prasad, meanwhile, has left it all to the Trai. Prasad, who was on Sunday in Chennai a few hours before the launch of Anna University’s first community FM radio, has been quoted in media reports as saying a decision on whether or not CAS would stay in Chennai depended solely on what the regulator’s report would recommend.

  • Mumbai HC postpones hearing of cable case to 23 July

    Mumbai HC postpones hearing of cable case to 23 July

    MUMBAI: A division bench of the Mumbai High Court hearing the public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Mumbai High Court early this year – or the “cable case” as it has come to be known – has scheduled the next hearing for 23 July.

    In fact, even as a High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice CL Thakker and VK Tahilaramani heard the various arguments, important developments related to pricing of pay channels were taking place in Delhi. 

    After hearing arguments from the various parties, the judges fixed the next date for hearing as 13 July.

    However, they modified the interim relief order dated 7 March stating that cable operators will be permitted to recover 10 per cent more than the cable rates appicable (or charged to consumers) in December 2002. It added that the consumers are liable to pay these rates till 13 July 2003 to avoid disconnections. This modified order will continue till the matter is decided by the court and subject to the final outcome of the case hearing.

    The High Court order dated 7 March 2003 had led to a lot of confusion amongst the trade and different constituents had interpreted it differently (read Conflicting claims over Mumbai High Court ruling of 7 March).

  • Mumbai HC rules post 1 Jan subscription rate hikes unenforceable

    MUMBAI: A two-judge bench of the Mumbai High Court today delivered a ruling that that has major implications on the subscription pricing mechanism instituted by broadcasters ahead of the CAS rollout.
    The order, delivered this morning after hearing a public interest litigation filed by BJP MP Kirit Somaiya last month, says that in individual cases of non payment at the old subscription rates of any MSO or cable operator existing as of 31 December 2002, a cable operator will be entitled to disconnect the subscriber.
    However, the order clearly states this will not be applicable in the case of subscription rates which have come into effect after 1 January 2003. Ergo, if consumers refuse to pay at the new rates, they cannot be disconnected, the judges ruled. 
    Ironically, the ruling spells bad news for Somaiya, who must have been hoping to win cache with middle class citizens with an eye on forthcoming elections, in his demand that subscription rates be capped at a maximum of Rs 150.
    But worst hit will be the pay-driven broadcasters, all of whom have announced new rate subscription rate cards effective 1 January. Subscribers now need to pay only at the old rate, with all the new pricing now standing nullified.
    Stay clued into indiantelevision.com for a detailed report that follows.

    See related story –
    Somaiya files PIL; Congress shoots of letter to governor 

  • Mumbai HC upholds Creative Eye right to ‘Jai Santoshi…’ track

    Mumbai HC upholds Creative Eye right to ‘Jai Santoshi…’ track

    MUMBAI: It may not be music to the ears of Kavi Pradeep’s descendants, but the Mumbai High Court has upheld Creative Eye’s rights to use the poet’s title track for its mythological Jai Santoshi Maa.

    The serial, currently aired on Zee TV, uses the hit track from the similarly titled film which spawned a massive cult following when released in 1975. Pradeep, who penned the lyrics for a pittance for the film’s producer Satram Rohra, is no more but his daughter Mittul Pradeep, dragged Creative Eye to court, asking that Pradeep be given due acknowledgement in the serial’s credits. Creative Eye MD Dheeraj Kumar did not deem it necessary, having bought the rights for using the song from Rohra for a reported Rs 48,000.

    The court, in its ruling this week, has also upheld Rohra’s rights to the work and dismissed Pradeep’s petition. “Under clause 7 all the rights in the work vest in defendent no. 3 (Satram Rohra) without any reservation. At least in this prima facie stage, therefore, it is not possible based on a prima facie reading of Clauses 7 or 8 to hold that they are contract to the contrary to bring the contract of service within the purview of Section 17 (c) of the Copyright Act”, it ruled.

    Earlier, Mittul Pradeep had sent copies of her petition to the Film Writers’ Association, Indian Motion Picture Producers’ Association (IMPPA), The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) and Zee TV, of which only the Film Writers’ Association (FWA), of which Kavi Pradeep had been a member, responded, supporting him legally, morally and financially.

    IMPPA, say media reports, took up the issue in March but Kumar had claimed he should not be held responsible for anything because he had the bond from Rohra. With the high court finally ruling in Creative Eye’s favour, the controversy seems to have ended. For now.