ITV

Tag: S Nagamuthu

  • Madras HC: Arguments to continue in Star-TRAI tariff case on Thursday

    NEW DELHI: Arguments will to continue tomorrow on the application by Star India and Vijay TV seeking a stay of the tariff orders issued by the regulator last month and slated to become effective 2 May 2017. It is expected that the arguments will conclude on Thursday and the order announced thereafter on the stay application.

    The broadcasters, who have challenged the jurisdiction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in issuing relating to TV content in Madras High Court, had on 28 March decided not to press for stay after the Court was informed by the regulator that it had decided to defer implementation of its tariff orders to 2 May instead of 2 April.

    TRAI had issued the tariff order, Quality of Service, and Reference Interconnect Agreement orders after getting clearance on 3 March from the Supreme Court, which had then directed the High Court to conclude the matter within sixty days.
     
    The case by the two broadcasters challenging the jurisdiction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on the plea that content fell under Copyright Act and did not come in the regulator’s purview had come up for hearing earlier this week in a bench headed by Madras High Court Chief Justice Indira Banerjee.

    Hearing on the petition, which has had a chequered history with three judges recusing themselves, commenced anew as it had gone before a new bench with the Chief Justice and Justice M Sundar.
    However, the matter was listed for tomorrow after a brief hearing when the Star India counsel commenced speaking as the court had other matters to conclude.

    After counsel for the broadcasters, counsel for TRAI, Union of India, and the intervener All India Digital Cable Federation will be heard.

    Though it was not clear, it appeared that the judges Justice S Nagamuthu, Justice Anita Sumanth and later Justice Govind Rajan had received letters which prompted them to withdraw from the case.

    The fresh petition became necessary as the matter is being heard afresh by the Chief Justice and Justice M Sundar. 

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year. 

    The orders can be seen at:
    http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_20…
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03…

    Following these regulations, the broadcasters had filed an amended petition and TRAI had also replied to the same last week. Concluding his arguments for the broadcasters, senior counsel P Chidambaram argued that TRAI’s action of fixing tariff for TV content was in violation of the Copyright Act. He also submitted that TRAI did not have the jurisdiction to fix tariff since the exploitation of IPR was part of the Copyright Act.

    Also Read:

    Hearing of Star – TRAI case begins before MHC chief justice

  • Hearing of Star – TRAI case begins before MHC chief justice

    NEW DELHI: The case by Star India and Vijay TV challenging the jurisdiction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on the plea that content did not come in the regulator’s ambit commenced today in a bench headed by Madras High Court Chief Justice Indira Banerjee.

    Hearing on the petition, which has had a chequered history with three judges recusing themselves, commenced anew as it had gone before a new bench with the Chief Justice and Justice M Sundar.

    However, the matter was listed for tomorrow after a brief hearing when the Star India counsel commenced speaking as the court had other matters to conclude.

    After counsel for the broadcasters, counsel for TRAI, Union of India, and the intervener All India Digital Cable Federation will be heard.

    Though it was not clear, it appeared that the judges Justice S Nagamuthu, Justice Anita Sumanth and later Justice Govind Rajan had received letters which prompted them to withdraw from the case.

    The petition had been filed by Star India and Vijay TV under the Copyright Act on the ground that TRAI could not give any directive that will affect the content since that did not fall in its purview.

    The fresh petition became necessary as the matter is being heard afresh by the Chief Justice. Star India SVP – Legal and Regulatory – Pulak Bagchi confirmed that while the primary case remained on the grounds of the Copyright Act remained the same, a new petition had been filed because it was coming up before the Chief Justice.  

    Last month, Star India and Vijay TV decided not to press for their pleas for extension of the tariff order following TRAI’s announcement that its tariff regulations which were slated to come into effect on 2 April were being deferred to 2 May 2017. The court had fixed the matter for further hearing on 3 April even as TRAI counsel commenced his arguments following the conclusion of the arguments by the broadcasters over two days commencing last Friday.

    Earlier, on 3 March, the regulator had issued three regulations after getting a directive from the Supreme Court on its appeal against a stay granted by the Madras High Court. While granting the appeal, the apex court also asked the high court to conclude hearing in 60 days.

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year. The orders can be seen at:

    http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_20…
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03…

    Following these regulations, the broadcasters had filed an amended petition and TRAI had also replied to the same last week. Concluding his arguments for the broadcasters, senior counsel P Chidambaram argued that TRAI’s action of fixing tariff for TV content was in violation of the Copyright Act. He also submitted that TRAI did not have the jurisdiction to fix tariff since the exploitation of IPR was part of the Copyright Act.

    Also Read:

    Chief Justice of MHC to hear Star India case against TRAI under Copyright Act

    Coordinate with registry for mentioning TV tariff matter, says Madras HC CJ

  • Star-TRAI case suffers as another judge withdraws in Madras HC

    MUMBAI: The TRAI tariff standoff with Star India, which is pending before the Madras High Court, seems to have hit another roadblock.

    It has been learnt that another judge — Justice Govind Rajan — on Monday recused himself from the case. Star India SVP – legal and regulatory Pulak Bagchi confirmed while speaking to www.indiantelevision.com that he has withdrawn citing personal reasons. To a question, Bagchi said that the case may be referred to another bench in 2-3 days.

    In the first week of April, the case by Star India and Vijay TV challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI in the matter of tariff orders took a surprising turn when Justice S Nagamuthu and Justice Anita Sumanth recused themselves.

    Though it was not clear, it appeared that the two judges had received a letter which prompted them to withdraw from the case. The petition had been filed by Star India and Vijay TV under the Copyright Act on the ground that TRAI could not give any directive that will affect the content since that did not fall in its purview.

    Meanwhile, counsel opined that, as the pleadings were completed, the new bench will get down to hearing the arguments. Arguments had commenced on behalf of the Union Government until lunch that day and the matter was thereafter adjourned.

    Star India and Vijay TV had decided not to press for their pleas for extension of the tariff order following TRAI’s announcement that its tariff regulations which were slated to come into effect on 2 April were being deferred to 2 May 2017. 

    Now, it is up to the chief justice of the Madras High Court to nominate another bench to hear the case as the recusing judge had written to the CJI that the matter was important and a new bench should be identified on an urgent basis to dispose of the case.

    Also Read :

    Star – TRAI copyright case: In dramatic turn, Madras HC judges withdraw

    Coordinate with registry for mentioning TV tariff matter, says Madras HC CJ

    TRAI extends tariff regulations execution date, Madras High court arguments to continue

  • Star-Vijay Copyright case hearing next week, TRAI to file counter

    NEW DELHI: The petition under the Copyright Act in the Madras High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is to be heard on 15 March 2017 as the regulator has sought more time to file a counter-affidavit in the matter.

    The time was also sought for more time as both Star India and Vijay TV amended their plaint and prayer in the light of the order of the in the light of the Supreme Court vacating the stay order earlier granted by the High Court. The Court had initially adjourned to 17 March but preponed it to 15 March as one counsel said he would not be available on 17 March.

    The broadcasters have pleaded that the regulator has no jurisdiction over matters relating to intellectual property rights.

    The Bench comprising Justice S Nagamuthu and Justice Anitha Sumanth was informed by All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) counsel A L Sundaresan and Star counsel P S Raman about the proceedings in the appeal by TRAI in the apex court. TRAI was represented by P Wilson while Additional Solicitor General G Rajagopalan represented the Central Government.

    Even as TRAI objected to the amendment and sought time for a counter, AIDCF informed the court that the notification itself provides that the effective provisions will come into effect after 30 days from date of publication (or in some cases, more than 30 days), hence the stay should not be granted. AIDCF also submitted that even on merits, a stay ought not to be granted.

    AIDCF informed the Court that Star may be directed to furnish copies of all documents and pleadings filed, to which the judge orally informed the counsel for Star to furnish the same.