ITV

Tag: Sanjeev Sachdeva

  • Furnish details of cable connections, Delhi Govt asks operators, MSOs wary of cascading effect

    MUMBAI: The Delhi government has ordered cable operators to furnish the number of subscribers, an attempt which seems to be driven by the idea of increasing entertainment tax collection. Cable operators generally pay entertainment tax based on the number of their connections. It is unclear whether the government plans to claim tax from retrospective effect or not, and what is the period it is claiming tax for.

    Speaking to www.indiantelevision.com, the country’s apex body for digital multi-system operators (MSOs) All-India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) secretary-general Saharsh Damani agreed that he had come across reports of local cable operators (LCOs) receiving tax notices. If the government were to demand and recover entertainment taxes from LCOs for the last 4-5 years, Damani opined, it would become difficult for the operators to survive commercially. If the LCOs were severely affected, it would obviously have had a cascading severe effect on the MSOs, he added.

    A written communication has reportedly been sent to multi-system operators (MSOs) to submit details of their local cable operators and cable connections at the earliest, according to the entertainment tax department. However, Den Networks CEO SN Sharma, speaking to www.indiantelevision.com, denied receiving any communication so far. Damani also replied in the negative.

    The department has reportedly asked MSOs, around 20 in Delhi, to provide details of their cable connections with each local cable operator (LCO). The department has also sought details of addresses and phone numbers of local cable operators under them, an official said. The decision has been taken to increase tax collection, the official said.

    According to the department, the government had collected Rs 160.72 crore in taxes in the financial year 2014-15, while it increased to Rs 261.94 crore in the fiscal 2015-16.

    The Delhi High Court had recently held that MSOs and LCOs distributing television signals to subscribers directly are liable to collect and pay entertainment to the government. The court’s decision came on pleas filed by four MSOs – Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd, DEN Networks Ltd, IndusInd Media and Communications and SITI Cable Network Ltd. They had moved the court challenging the levy of entertainment tax and vires of the Delhi Entertainment and BettingTax Rules.

    The four had sought quashing of the Delhi government’s 17 December, 2012, circular and show cause notices issued in January 2014 directing them to deposit tax beginning April 2013. Delhi had threatened to halt cable TV transmission of the MSOs by closing their headends. The government had stated that the assessment of the MSOs bared that they had been indulging in tax fraud in crore since April 2013. 

    A bench of justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Badar Durrez Ahemed, however, quashed the Delhi government’s December 2012 circular and show-cause notices served by its Department of Entertainment Tax asking the MSOs to to pay entertainment tax or face action.

    Also Read:

    Entertainment tax: MSOs & LCOs must collect & pay, HC halts Delhi ‘action’

    Subhash Chandra hails GST, seeks new tax system & ease of doing biz

  • Entertainment tax: MSOs & LCOs must collect & pay, HC halts Delhi ‘action’

    MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court has held that MSOs (multi-system operators) and LCOs (local cable operators) distributing television signals to subscribers directly are liable to collect and pay entertainment to the government.

    The court’s decision came on pleas filed by four MSOs – Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd, DEN Networks Ltd, IndusInd Media and Communications and SITI Cable Network Ltd. They had moved the court challenging the levy of entertainment tax and vires of the Delhi Entertainment and Betting Tax Rules.

    The four had sought quashing of the Delhi government’s 17 December, 2012, circular and show cause notices issued in January 2014 directing them to deposit tax beginning April 2013. Delhi had threatened to halt cable TV transmission of the MSOs by closing their headends. The government had stated that the assessment of the MSOs bared that they had been indulging in tax fraud in crore since April 2013.

    A bench of justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Badar Durrez Ahemed, however, quashed the Delhi government’s December 2012 circular and show-cause notices served by its Department of Entertainment Tax asking the MSOs to to pay entertainment tax or face action.

    Terming the circular as “without any authority of law”, the bench said, “To be clear, MSOs to the extent that they directly provide cable service to the subscribers without the intervention of any LCO (local cable operator), would be regarded as the proprietors under Section 7(1) and would be liable to collect and pay the entertainment tax to the government,” PTI reported.

    “However, where the MSOs provide the service through the LCOs, the individual LCOs having its own subscriber networks, would be regarded as the proprietors in respect of their individual networks and would be liable to collect the entertainment tax and pay the same to the government.”

    The court made it clear that as far as the assessments related to deposition to tax to the department are concerned, the MSOs “would have to take their own remedies against the assessment orders and/or appellate orders in view of the decision arrived at in this case”.

  • Respond to Vodafone’s TRAI challenge in two weeks, govt directed

    Respond to Vodafone’s TRAI challenge in two weeks, govt directed

    MUMBAI: Terming it as “premature”, the central government has opposed a plea by the telecom major Vodafone Mobile Services challenging TRAI’s recommendation to impose Rs 1,050 crore penalty for not providing interconnectivity to Reliance Jio.

    The government rejected the plea by Vodafone, which operates in 21 circles, against a penalty of Rs 50 crore per telecom circle recommended by TRAI. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India had suggested the penalty on grounds that Vodafone had violated terms and conditions relating to points of interconnection among service providers.

    Additional solicitor-general Sanjay Jain, appearing on behalf of the Centre, said that since the role of TRAI was advisory, what material did the telecom company had to show that the Centre’s decision would be clouded by the recommendation.

    Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, who was hearing the matter, directed the Centre to file a short affidavit within two weeks and limit it to the question of maintainability of the suit.

    TRAI recommendation was made to DoT (department of telecommunications), and is based on a complaint by Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, which alleged that Vodafone had refused to comply with interconnection norms. TRAI had also recommended a similar penalty on Bharti Airtel and Idea Cellular Ltd.

    Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Vodafone, urged the court to decide whether TRAI exceeded its jurisdiction by giving the recommendation. The telecom argued that TRAI has the power to impose “financial disincentives” for breach of Quality of Service regulations and to ensure compliance of terms and conditions of licence.

    The ASG opposed the maintainability of the petition, saying once DoT took a decision, then it was an appealable order.

    The court gave the telecom ministry and TRAI two weeks to file their reply on the issue of maintainability and listed it for hearing on 6 February.

  • Respond to Vodafone’s TRAI challenge in two weeks, govt directed

    Respond to Vodafone’s TRAI challenge in two weeks, govt directed

    MUMBAI: Terming it as “premature”, the central government has opposed a plea by the telecom major Vodafone Mobile Services challenging TRAI’s recommendation to impose Rs 1,050 crore penalty for not providing interconnectivity to Reliance Jio.

    The government rejected the plea by Vodafone, which operates in 21 circles, against a penalty of Rs 50 crore per telecom circle recommended by TRAI. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India had suggested the penalty on grounds that Vodafone had violated terms and conditions relating to points of interconnection among service providers.

    Additional solicitor-general Sanjay Jain, appearing on behalf of the Centre, said that since the role of TRAI was advisory, what material did the telecom company had to show that the Centre’s decision would be clouded by the recommendation.

    Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, who was hearing the matter, directed the Centre to file a short affidavit within two weeks and limit it to the question of maintainability of the suit.

    TRAI recommendation was made to DoT (department of telecommunications), and is based on a complaint by Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, which alleged that Vodafone had refused to comply with interconnection norms. TRAI had also recommended a similar penalty on Bharti Airtel and Idea Cellular Ltd.

    Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Vodafone, urged the court to decide whether TRAI exceeded its jurisdiction by giving the recommendation. The telecom argued that TRAI has the power to impose “financial disincentives” for breach of Quality of Service regulations and to ensure compliance of terms and conditions of licence.

    The ASG opposed the maintainability of the petition, saying once DoT took a decision, then it was an appealable order.

    The court gave the telecom ministry and TRAI two weeks to file their reply on the issue of maintainability and listed it for hearing on 6 February.

  • Licence fee payable to copyright owners; HC ‘no’ to vacate injunction

    Licence fee payable to copyright owners; HC ‘no’ to vacate injunction

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court vacation judge Justice Najmi Waziri has declined to vacate the injunction obtained by Event and Entertainment Management Association (EEMA) from the court earlier this month against collection of licence fees by the Indian Performing Rights Society, the Phonographic Performance Ltd and Novex.

    However, the court gave directions whereby a complete list of performances would be kept for which payments are claimed and these will be subject to the final outcome of the petition by EEMA.

    Earlier, on 23 December 2016, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva had accepted that IPRS, PPL, and Novex were not registered copyright societies under section 33 of the Copyright Act, and had therefore restrained them from collecting any licence fee from performers or performing societies. He listed the matter for further hearing on 24 April 2017.

    EEMA had filed caveats in the event of these bodies seeking to challenge the restraint order and were therefore present in court when the challenge came up before the vacation bench.

    The vacation bench said for the interim period, EEMA members / the event organizer will provide PPL/IPRS/Novex a list of songs that they intend to play before an event on mail. PPL / IPRS / Novex will thereafter need to confirm in writing if they own the tracks.

    The event organisers will pay the amount before the event as per mutual negotiation with the copyright owner. The License issuing company/entity shall provide proof by way of legal agreements within seven days of the invoice, to the satisfaction of the event organiser. In case the event organiser is not satisfied by the proof provided, a refund can be claimed through the courts. The money will not be appropriated till such time that the matter is mutually resolved  

    Thus, copyright licence fees can only be collected under Section 30 which is reserved for owners of the copyright with the clear proviso that, when called upon to do so, they need to prove their ownership.

    Additionally, PPL/IPRS/Novex were asked to put up a detailed list on their website listing all songs they own, including the names of the authors / producers they have acquired them from along with the dates of validity of the contract till 31 March 2016.

    In addition to this, the licensing companies have to upload the valid legal agreements by which they claim ownership of these tracks by 31 December 2016.

    In the order that came after hearing EEMA counsel Ramji Srinivasan and Ashwani Kumar for the respondents, the Court instructed PPL/IPRS/Novex to set up an online payment gateway within one month of this hearing wherein we will be able to easily obtain permissions online.

    In a statement issued later, EEMA described the order as ‘very positive’ in the direction of transparency and accountability that EEMA and the creative fraternity across the music industry has been fighting for.

    The statement added that EEMA believes that copyright fees should be paid to the rightful creators and owners of copyright in a transparent and reasonable manner so that the rightful owners should receive their due and the rates being charged are logical and reasonable.

    Also Read:

    Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

     

  • Licence fee payable to copyright owners; HC ‘no’ to vacate injunction

    Licence fee payable to copyright owners; HC ‘no’ to vacate injunction

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court vacation judge Justice Najmi Waziri has declined to vacate the injunction obtained by Event and Entertainment Management Association (EEMA) from the court earlier this month against collection of licence fees by the Indian Performing Rights Society, the Phonographic Performance Ltd and Novex.

    However, the court gave directions whereby a complete list of performances would be kept for which payments are claimed and these will be subject to the final outcome of the petition by EEMA.

    Earlier, on 23 December 2016, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva had accepted that IPRS, PPL, and Novex were not registered copyright societies under section 33 of the Copyright Act, and had therefore restrained them from collecting any licence fee from performers or performing societies. He listed the matter for further hearing on 24 April 2017.

    EEMA had filed caveats in the event of these bodies seeking to challenge the restraint order and were therefore present in court when the challenge came up before the vacation bench.

    The vacation bench said for the interim period, EEMA members / the event organizer will provide PPL/IPRS/Novex a list of songs that they intend to play before an event on mail. PPL / IPRS / Novex will thereafter need to confirm in writing if they own the tracks.

    The event organisers will pay the amount before the event as per mutual negotiation with the copyright owner. The License issuing company/entity shall provide proof by way of legal agreements within seven days of the invoice, to the satisfaction of the event organiser. In case the event organiser is not satisfied by the proof provided, a refund can be claimed through the courts. The money will not be appropriated till such time that the matter is mutually resolved  

    Thus, copyright licence fees can only be collected under Section 30 which is reserved for owners of the copyright with the clear proviso that, when called upon to do so, they need to prove their ownership.

    Additionally, PPL/IPRS/Novex were asked to put up a detailed list on their website listing all songs they own, including the names of the authors / producers they have acquired them from along with the dates of validity of the contract till 31 March 2016.

    In addition to this, the licensing companies have to upload the valid legal agreements by which they claim ownership of these tracks by 31 December 2016.

    In the order that came after hearing EEMA counsel Ramji Srinivasan and Ashwani Kumar for the respondents, the Court instructed PPL/IPRS/Novex to set up an online payment gateway within one month of this hearing wherein we will be able to easily obtain permissions online.

    In a statement issued later, EEMA described the order as ‘very positive’ in the direction of transparency and accountability that EEMA and the creative fraternity across the music industry has been fighting for.

    The statement added that EEMA believes that copyright fees should be paid to the rightful creators and owners of copyright in a transparent and reasonable manner so that the rightful owners should receive their due and the rates being charged are logical and reasonable.

    Also Read:

    Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

     

  • Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    MUMBAI: It’s a judgment that has taken some time a-coming. For long Indian event organisers and agencies have been battling with the music licensing in various courts – the IPRS and PPL and Novex Communications – on their legal standing to collect royalties for music that is played out during ground events that the former organise. While the first two represent the interests of writers, authoris, composers and almost all Indian and international music labels, the latter collects royalties from event organisers for music from the YRF and Zee Music stable.

    With many parties and gigs planned by many event organisers planned for the new year – which is a plum time for these three bodies to collect revenues for live events and parties – the Event & Entertainment Management filed a petition with the Delhi high court on 21 December. It named the Indian government, the Copyright Off ice and PPL, IPRS, and Novex Communications as respondents to the case.

    The petition highlighted that despite the fact that currently neither of the bodies issuing ‘licenses’ are infact registered copyright societies – PPL / IPRS and Novex – however they still continue to grant licenses and continue to be in the business of granting licenses.”

    Two days later, on 23 December 2016, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva issued an order which reads. “..the respondent Nos.3 (PPL) to 5 (IPRS and Novex Communications) are restrained from acting in contravention of Section 33 of the Act and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Union of India and Copyright Office respectively) are directed to take action in accordance with law for any breach of provisions of Section 33 by the respondent Nos.3 to 5.”

    According to the EEMA , this effectively means that the three bodies have been barred from collecting money for music licensing for events until the next hearing which is scheduled for 24 April 2017.

    “The Music Licensing lobby (PPL / IPRS / Novex) has been engaged in illegal issuance of licenses since over two years now and flouts all laws by openly threatening venues to stop events unless the license is procured,” says EEMA secretary (legal) Ankur Kalra: “Venues in turn pressurise event managers to do the same who despite knowing that it is wrong are forced to procure these licenses in order to safeguard their events. The music licensing ‘societies’ today are private limited companies operating purely for profit and very little or no money actually reaches the artists. It has become an organised syndicate and when we highlighted the same to the court we got an injunction almost immediately. We will take this battle forward and ensure that all event managers, venues and police departments are educated on this matter so that they are not part of the exploitation.”

    Adds EEMA legal counsel Abhishek Malhotra: “The music industry has been going through a flux. While the law clearly provides that issue and grant of licenses can be done only through a registered copyright society, these three entities have been effectively carrying on this business in violation of the clear legal provisions. This order as well as the government of India’s endorsement of the issues facing the users of music is therefore a welcome development. “

    We contacted several senior professionals from the music industry. Most were in the dark about the Delhi high court injunction order. However, the IRPS head Rakesh Nigam exclaimed that the order does not concern “the IPRS as it has been functioning under section 30 of the Copyright Act. The High Court’s verdict concerns bodies working under section 33 of the Act.”

    (courtesy http://www.radioandmusic.com/biz)

  • Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    MUMBAI: It’s a judgment that has taken some time a-coming. For long Indian event organisers and agencies have been battling with the music licensing in various courts – the IPRS and PPL and Novex Communications – on their legal standing to collect royalties for music that is played out during ground events that the former organise. While the first two represent the interests of writers, authoris, composers and almost all Indian and international music labels, the latter collects royalties from event organisers for music from the YRF and Zee Music stable.

    With many parties and gigs planned by many event organisers planned for the new year – which is a plum time for these three bodies to collect revenues for live events and parties – the Event & Entertainment Management filed a petition with the Delhi high court on 21 December. It named the Indian government, the Copyright Off ice and PPL, IPRS, and Novex Communications as respondents to the case.

    The petition highlighted that despite the fact that currently neither of the bodies issuing ‘licenses’ are infact registered copyright societies – PPL / IPRS and Novex – however they still continue to grant licenses and continue to be in the business of granting licenses.”

    Two days later, on 23 December 2016, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva issued an order which reads. “..the respondent Nos.3 (PPL) to 5 (IPRS and Novex Communications) are restrained from acting in contravention of Section 33 of the Act and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Union of India and Copyright Office respectively) are directed to take action in accordance with law for any breach of provisions of Section 33 by the respondent Nos.3 to 5.”

    According to the EEMA , this effectively means that the three bodies have been barred from collecting money for music licensing for events until the next hearing which is scheduled for 24 April 2017.

    “The Music Licensing lobby (PPL / IPRS / Novex) has been engaged in illegal issuance of licenses since over two years now and flouts all laws by openly threatening venues to stop events unless the license is procured,” says EEMA secretary (legal) Ankur Kalra: “Venues in turn pressurise event managers to do the same who despite knowing that it is wrong are forced to procure these licenses in order to safeguard their events. The music licensing ‘societies’ today are private limited companies operating purely for profit and very little or no money actually reaches the artists. It has become an organised syndicate and when we highlighted the same to the court we got an injunction almost immediately. We will take this battle forward and ensure that all event managers, venues and police departments are educated on this matter so that they are not part of the exploitation.”

    Adds EEMA legal counsel Abhishek Malhotra: “The music industry has been going through a flux. While the law clearly provides that issue and grant of licenses can be done only through a registered copyright society, these three entities have been effectively carrying on this business in violation of the clear legal provisions. This order as well as the government of India’s endorsement of the issues facing the users of music is therefore a welcome development. “

    We contacted several senior professionals from the music industry. Most were in the dark about the Delhi high court injunction order. However, the IRPS head Rakesh Nigam exclaimed that the order does not concern “the IPRS as it has been functioning under section 30 of the Copyright Act. The High Court’s verdict concerns bodies working under section 33 of the Act.”

    (courtesy http://www.radioandmusic.com/biz)

  • Siti Networks CEO V.D. Wadhwa hails dismissal of DAS III cases by Delhi HC

    Siti Networks CEO V.D. Wadhwa hails dismissal of DAS III cases by Delhi HC

    MUMBAI: Siti Networks executive director & CEO V.D. Wadhwa has welcomed the Delhi High Court judgement which, on 3 November, overruled the orders passed by various other high courts whereby the stay granted for extension of digitisation for nine cases spanning four states in DAS Phase III will no longer be applicable.

    The DAS Phase III implementation deadline of 31 December 2015 had been impacted due to stay orders taken in various high courts. On the basis of the ministry of information & broadcasting’s recommendation, in April, the Supreme Court had transferred all cases related to extension of DAS Phase III deadline to the Delhi High Court, thus making it a designated court for all related matters.

    Welcoming the judgement, Wadhwa said that the dismissal of the nine cases by the Delhi High Court will pave the path for cable TV digitisation in phase III areas and allow for its timely implementation in phase IV localities as well.

    In his 3 November order, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva of the Delhi High Court’s single bench has directed all nine petitioners to run a scroll on their networks about digitization and switch off analog signals in three weeks. Justice Sachdeva also said that these cases were infructuous as the time sought for extension had already been given and the extension has well passed those dates. The nine cases for which the order was given are from four states, namely, Karnataka (Riddhi Vision, Victory Digital, Sri Chowdeshwary Cable Network, Yogesh Cable Networks, Amma TV), Kerala (Athulay Infomedia), Andhra Pradesh & Telangana (Panchajanya Media), and Uttar Pradesh (Sai Cable TV Network, Sunil Kr Singh).

    Wadhwa added: “Digitisation is very important for not just the consumers, who will get better service and more choice in terms of channel packages, but also for local cable operators, MSOs and broadcasters. It will allow for parity in sharing of revenues as per TRAI guidelines. This will also aid in increasing the internet penetration in the country and thus realizing the digital India dream. I would urge all concerned to immediately comply with the honorable court’s orders to seed digital set-top boxes and switching off of analog signals in three weeks’ time.”

    All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), the industry body representing Multi System Operators (MSO), has asked all its members to work with broadcasters to switch off analogue signals and implement digitisation in DAS Phase III markets immediately in line with the court order.

    AIDCF has urged all LCOs, MSOs, broadcasters and government bodies to help complete digitisation at the earliest. In a separate mail sent to Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), the apex body for television broadcasters, AIDCF has asked them to shut down analogue and broadcast digital signals only.

    Wadhwa, in his capacity as the president of AIDCF, thanked Justice Sachdeva for this important order to pave the way for digitisation.

  • Siti Networks CEO V.D. Wadhwa hails dismissal of DAS III cases by Delhi HC

    Siti Networks CEO V.D. Wadhwa hails dismissal of DAS III cases by Delhi HC

    MUMBAI: Siti Networks executive director & CEO V.D. Wadhwa has welcomed the Delhi High Court judgement which, on 3 November, overruled the orders passed by various other high courts whereby the stay granted for extension of digitisation for nine cases spanning four states in DAS Phase III will no longer be applicable.

    The DAS Phase III implementation deadline of 31 December 2015 had been impacted due to stay orders taken in various high courts. On the basis of the ministry of information & broadcasting’s recommendation, in April, the Supreme Court had transferred all cases related to extension of DAS Phase III deadline to the Delhi High Court, thus making it a designated court for all related matters.

    Welcoming the judgement, Wadhwa said that the dismissal of the nine cases by the Delhi High Court will pave the path for cable TV digitisation in phase III areas and allow for its timely implementation in phase IV localities as well.

    In his 3 November order, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva of the Delhi High Court’s single bench has directed all nine petitioners to run a scroll on their networks about digitization and switch off analog signals in three weeks. Justice Sachdeva also said that these cases were infructuous as the time sought for extension had already been given and the extension has well passed those dates. The nine cases for which the order was given are from four states, namely, Karnataka (Riddhi Vision, Victory Digital, Sri Chowdeshwary Cable Network, Yogesh Cable Networks, Amma TV), Kerala (Athulay Infomedia), Andhra Pradesh & Telangana (Panchajanya Media), and Uttar Pradesh (Sai Cable TV Network, Sunil Kr Singh).

    Wadhwa added: “Digitisation is very important for not just the consumers, who will get better service and more choice in terms of channel packages, but also for local cable operators, MSOs and broadcasters. It will allow for parity in sharing of revenues as per TRAI guidelines. This will also aid in increasing the internet penetration in the country and thus realizing the digital India dream. I would urge all concerned to immediately comply with the honorable court’s orders to seed digital set-top boxes and switching off of analog signals in three weeks’ time.”

    All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), the industry body representing Multi System Operators (MSO), has asked all its members to work with broadcasters to switch off analogue signals and implement digitisation in DAS Phase III markets immediately in line with the court order.

    AIDCF has urged all LCOs, MSOs, broadcasters and government bodies to help complete digitisation at the earliest. In a separate mail sent to Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), the apex body for television broadcasters, AIDCF has asked them to shut down analogue and broadcast digital signals only.

    Wadhwa, in his capacity as the president of AIDCF, thanked Justice Sachdeva for this important order to pave the way for digitisation.