ITV

Tag: Siti Cable Networks

  • TDSAT recalls attachment proceedings against MSO Sadhna Media

    TDSAT recalls attachment proceedings against MSO Sadhna Media

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has recalled its order of attachment of properties of Sadhna Media Pvt Ltd after Siti Cable Network Ltd confirmed that the demand draft of Rs 26,87,793 handed over to it last month was in full and final settlement of a case pending since 2013.

    Consequently members B B Srivastava and A K Bhargava also disposed of the execution application.

    Sadhna Group is a media and broadcast business conglomerate, running multiple television channels and engaged in varied businesses of media, education, advertising, medical, mining and aviation, based in New Delhi.

    Siti Networks Limited (Siti Cable Network) is a part of the Essel Group, which is one of India’s leading business houses with a diverse portfolio. Being India’s one of the most prominent multi-system operators (MSO), Sit is reaching a billion people.

    In an order on 17 January 2017, the tribunal also directed that District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi, and District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, UP, may be informed about this order.

    The tribunal had passed the attachment order on 8 September 2016 after it was informed that despite an agreement on 22 April 2014, the MSO had failed to make any payment to Siti Cable. The details of the case can be had from the TDSAT website.

    Following this, the tribunal had asked Siti Cable on 30 April 2014 to withdraw its petition. However, Siti Cable filed a fresh application last year seeking attachment of the properties of the MSO — Sadhna Media.

    The evolution of the Sadhna Group can be traced to its beginning in 1977 as a small advertising agency. Apart from audio-visual programming and broadcasting, the group has varied business interests in the allied areas of television media – Sadhna/Sadhna News/Ishwar channels, advertising – print/outdoor, etc.

    It was in September, 2016, an execution application (E.A.) was filed by the petitioner decree holder, Siti Cable Network, for realisation of the decretal amount of Rs.18,53,650/- in terms of order of the tribunal dated 30.4.2014.

    Siti Cable Network and the respondent judgement debtor Sadhna Media Pvt. Ltd. concluded a settlement agreement before the Mediation Centre of the TDSAT on 22.4.2014. The terms of the settlement were as under: That it has been agreed by and between the parties that the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs. 18,53,650/- to the petitioner in full and final settlement of all dues. That the above amount shall be paid by the respondent in six equal monthly installments of Rs.3,08,942/- each commencing from 30 April, 2014, by way of a cheque/demand draft.

  • TDSAT recalls attachment proceedings against MSO Sadhna Media

    TDSAT recalls attachment proceedings against MSO Sadhna Media

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has recalled its order of attachment of properties of Sadhna Media Pvt Ltd after Siti Cable Network Ltd confirmed that the demand draft of Rs 26,87,793 handed over to it last month was in full and final settlement of a case pending since 2013.

    Consequently members B B Srivastava and A K Bhargava also disposed of the execution application.

    Sadhna Group is a media and broadcast business conglomerate, running multiple television channels and engaged in varied businesses of media, education, advertising, medical, mining and aviation, based in New Delhi.

    Siti Networks Limited (Siti Cable Network) is a part of the Essel Group, which is one of India’s leading business houses with a diverse portfolio. Being India’s one of the most prominent multi-system operators (MSO), Sit is reaching a billion people.

    In an order on 17 January 2017, the tribunal also directed that District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi, and District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, UP, may be informed about this order.

    The tribunal had passed the attachment order on 8 September 2016 after it was informed that despite an agreement on 22 April 2014, the MSO had failed to make any payment to Siti Cable. The details of the case can be had from the TDSAT website.

    Following this, the tribunal had asked Siti Cable on 30 April 2014 to withdraw its petition. However, Siti Cable filed a fresh application last year seeking attachment of the properties of the MSO — Sadhna Media.

    The evolution of the Sadhna Group can be traced to its beginning in 1977 as a small advertising agency. Apart from audio-visual programming and broadcasting, the group has varied business interests in the allied areas of television media – Sadhna/Sadhna News/Ishwar channels, advertising – print/outdoor, etc.

    It was in September, 2016, an execution application (E.A.) was filed by the petitioner decree holder, Siti Cable Network, for realisation of the decretal amount of Rs.18,53,650/- in terms of order of the tribunal dated 30.4.2014.

    Siti Cable Network and the respondent judgement debtor Sadhna Media Pvt. Ltd. concluded a settlement agreement before the Mediation Centre of the TDSAT on 22.4.2014. The terms of the settlement were as under: That it has been agreed by and between the parties that the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs. 18,53,650/- to the petitioner in full and final settlement of all dues. That the above amount shall be paid by the respondent in six equal monthly installments of Rs.3,08,942/- each commencing from 30 April, 2014, by way of a cheque/demand draft.

  • DAS Phase III cases caught up in a logjam courtesy Delhi High Court

    DAS Phase III cases caught up in a logjam courtesy Delhi High Court

    NEW DELHI: With the Delhi High Court yet to decide on the date of hearing all cases seeking extension of Phase III of digital addressable system passed on to it by the Supreme Court, two more cases – before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal – have been put off again.

    Petitions by the Rohtak Cable Operator Association, Haryana, and Rewari Cable Operators Association against Siti Cable Networks have been put off to 11 August by member B B Srivastava.

    In the previous hearing on 6 May 2016, the cases had been put off in view of their pendency before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

    However, the Tribunal said that in view of the directive by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that SitiCable will not interfere with the operators continuing to transmit in analogue, the previous order of 6 May 2016 of the Tribunal will continue.

    In its order on 11 July 2016, the Tribunal noted the statement by counsel for the cable operator organizations that the matter was now being transferred to the Delhi High Court after the order of the Supreme Court but “is yet to be listed.”

    But the Tribunal said the LCOs will continue to pay the monthly subscription fee as per the previous agreement and on thebasis of invoices raised by the respondent in order to receive signals.

    The registry of the Supreme Court has sent to all the concerned High Courts the directive of the apex court of 1 April for transfer of all cases seeking extension to digital addressable system for cable television to Delhi High Court with a view to avoid conflicting decisions.’

    A copy of the order was also sent to the Delhi High Court and it was now up to that Court to fix a date, Supreme Court officials said.

    The officials said that the attempt would be to first receive from the various High Courts the papers relating to the petitions, which almost all had pleaded shortage of set top boxes for seeking extension or stay of DAS which became effective 1 January 2016.

    The apex court had accepted the plea of the Central Government that ‘it would be just and proper for this Court to withdraw allthose cases pending in different High Courts and transfer the same to the Delhi High Court.’

    Ironically, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had on 12 January 2016 written to its counsel in Punjab and Hryana High Court that it had understood the Hyderabad order to mean a pan India stay while asking him to defend the case.

    But later, the Ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one High Court gives a stay, another High Court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the High Court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

    Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.

    The last DAS Task Force meeting on 30 May 2016 was informed that a total of 42 court cases have been filed for extension in the deadline of Phase lll in various courts in the country with the two-month extension by the Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Courts. Other Courts followed suit in the ground that this order was extendable to other areas. This led to the Centre moving the Supreme Court which passed an order of transfer of all cases for extension filed in various courts and any new cases on similar prayer to the Delhi High Court for adjudication.

    The meeting was also told 17 cases had been transferred by various courts to the Delhi High Court out of which the High Court had dismissed three cases and another three cases were being heard that same day.

  • DAS Phase III cases caught up in a logjam courtesy Delhi High Court

    DAS Phase III cases caught up in a logjam courtesy Delhi High Court

    NEW DELHI: With the Delhi High Court yet to decide on the date of hearing all cases seeking extension of Phase III of digital addressable system passed on to it by the Supreme Court, two more cases – before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal – have been put off again.

    Petitions by the Rohtak Cable Operator Association, Haryana, and Rewari Cable Operators Association against Siti Cable Networks have been put off to 11 August by member B B Srivastava.

    In the previous hearing on 6 May 2016, the cases had been put off in view of their pendency before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

    However, the Tribunal said that in view of the directive by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that SitiCable will not interfere with the operators continuing to transmit in analogue, the previous order of 6 May 2016 of the Tribunal will continue.

    In its order on 11 July 2016, the Tribunal noted the statement by counsel for the cable operator organizations that the matter was now being transferred to the Delhi High Court after the order of the Supreme Court but “is yet to be listed.”

    But the Tribunal said the LCOs will continue to pay the monthly subscription fee as per the previous agreement and on thebasis of invoices raised by the respondent in order to receive signals.

    The registry of the Supreme Court has sent to all the concerned High Courts the directive of the apex court of 1 April for transfer of all cases seeking extension to digital addressable system for cable television to Delhi High Court with a view to avoid conflicting decisions.’

    A copy of the order was also sent to the Delhi High Court and it was now up to that Court to fix a date, Supreme Court officials said.

    The officials said that the attempt would be to first receive from the various High Courts the papers relating to the petitions, which almost all had pleaded shortage of set top boxes for seeking extension or stay of DAS which became effective 1 January 2016.

    The apex court had accepted the plea of the Central Government that ‘it would be just and proper for this Court to withdraw allthose cases pending in different High Courts and transfer the same to the Delhi High Court.’

    Ironically, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had on 12 January 2016 written to its counsel in Punjab and Hryana High Court that it had understood the Hyderabad order to mean a pan India stay while asking him to defend the case.

    But later, the Ministry sources admitted to indiantelevision.com that there was a misreading of the Bombay High Court directive. The Court had merely refereed to the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs the Union of India 2004 case to say that if one High Court gives a stay, another High Court can act in similar fashion if the facts are similar – in this case, shortage of STBs. Thus, they agree that the High Court stay was only confined to Maharashtra and not pan-India.

    Earlier, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petition after the Supreme Court said that the order of the Bombay High Court did not imply any pan-India stay.

    The last DAS Task Force meeting on 30 May 2016 was informed that a total of 42 court cases have been filed for extension in the deadline of Phase lll in various courts in the country with the two-month extension by the Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Courts. Other Courts followed suit in the ground that this order was extendable to other areas. This led to the Centre moving the Supreme Court which passed an order of transfer of all cases for extension filed in various courts and any new cases on similar prayer to the Delhi High Court for adjudication.

    The meeting was also told 17 cases had been transferred by various courts to the Delhi High Court out of which the High Court had dismissed three cases and another three cases were being heard that same day.

  • TDSAT regrets TV distributors interconnect pacts without any written document

    TDSAT regrets TV distributors interconnect pacts without any written document

    NEW DELHI: Noting that a large number of cases keep coming up before it suffer from the ‘malaise of distributors of TV channels entering into interconnect arrangements without any agreement in writing (or at any rate a definitive agreement) as mandated by law’. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has observed that ‘oral arrangements may appear expedient and profitable but with the passage of time, the relationship becomes both strained and hurtful.’

    Disposing off three petitions involving 375 local cable operators, one by the Karnataka State Digital Cable TV Operators Welfare Association against Siti Cable Networks and the other by Cable Operators Sangram Association, Kolkata against Hathway Cable and Datacom, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said a large percentage of cases coming to the tribunal from the broadcasting sector have their root cause in the absence of any agreement in writing between the parties. “What is more  regrettable” is the fact that the cases in which two distributors of TV signals happen to be in interconnect arrangement without any agreement in writing is not confined only to analogue transmission but arise almost in equal numbers under the Digital Addressable System regime.

    In the two Kolkata cases, all the 102 LCOs and Hathway are directed to execute either the Model Interconnection Agreement based on mutual negotiations or failing this, the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days as there is no interconnect agreement between the two sides.

    TRAI made it clear that in case no interconnection agreement in writing comes into existence between the LCOs and The MSOs, Siti Cable in the Karnataka case and Hathway (in the Kolkata case) will be obliged to discontinue the supply of signals to the LCOs for any supply of signals beyond that period would be illegal and in contravention of the statutory prohibition.

    In case any of the LCO wishes to shift away from its present MSO, it must give 21 days’ notice to the MSO before migrating to any other distributor of signals.

    As regards the past relationship, in case of any dues that the two MSOs (Siti Cable in Karnataka and Hathway in Kolkata) might claim on the basis of any written agreement or on the basis of any interim order passed by the tribunal in these proceedings, it would be open to them to initiate recovery proceedings against the concerned LCO in accordance with law.

    “Needless to say, no monetary claim for supply of signals may be entertained that is not based on any written agreement.”

    The Tribunal said it was “glad to note that the regulator has moved in and amended the regulations to plug in even the little loop-hole that was misused for continuing the supply of signals under DAS transmission even after the expiry of the agreement. Further, by another amendment in the Regulations it has removed the ambivalence that was created in the scheme of interconnections as result of fixing the shares of the MSO and the LCO by the Tariff Order dated 10 July 2010 as amended on 30 April 2012.”

    The two amendments in the Interconnect Regulations 2012 made by TRAI during the pendency of these petitions leave nothing for adjudication in these matters and all that is required is to direct the parties to simply follow the law.

    In the Karnataka LCO petition, the Tribunal said all the 269 LCOs will be free either to continue with the existing agreements or to switch over to either the Model Interconnection Agreement or the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days.  Each of the LCOs should intimate Siti Cable whether or not it wishes to continue with the existing agreement. Those exercising the option not to continue with the existing agreement may further negotiate with Siti Cable for execution of the Model Interconnection Agreement failing which both sides must execute the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days from today.

    The LCOs operate in Bengaluru which came under DAS transmission in Phase-11. All the LCOs represented through this petition are receiving their signals from the Siti Cable.  The petition was filed on 24 August 2015 challenging the disconnection notices issued by the MSO under clauses 6.2 and 6.5 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable    Television Systems) Regulations2012 issued on grounds of non-payment of the monthly subscription dues. Mutual negotiations before the Mediation Centre failed.

    On 15 December 2015, it was stated on behalf of the MSO that as  on 31 October 2015, the cumulative dues against the 269 LCOs amounted to Rs l.65 crore for the a Ia carte channels and for the channels that are given to the LCOs in bouquets, approximately Rs 25 lakh calculated @ Rs.60 per STB. It was also stated on behalf of the MSO that under the agreement with certain broadcasters, it was getting the broadcasters’ channels on the latter’s RIO rates and it was no longer possible for it to give those channels in any packages and any LCO wanting those channels could take them on RIO rates.

    The Kolkata petitions were filed by the Association on behalf of 42 LCOs and later on behalf of another 60LCOs. All these LCOs operate in Kolkata and receive TV signals from Hathway. Most of the LCOs are operating in areas that came under DAS transmission in phase-II and a few are operating in areas that come under DAS transmission in phase-III. In these two cases, the LCOs sought a direction to the MSO to restore supply  of  signals  to  some  of  the  STBs  that,  they  alleged,  were  disconnected arbitrarily and not to interfere with the smooth and good quality supply of signals to the LCOs.

    According to the petitioner, as per the understanding between the two sides, they were liable to pay Rs 110 per STB as monthly subscription fee for all the channels being received by them and regardless of the subscription fee charged by them from the individual subscribers but the MSO had raised the subscription fee and was trying to enforce package   billing that would further greatly increase the   monthly subscription fee.  Though the parties are in interconnect arrangement for a long time, there is no interconnect agreements.

     

  • TDSAT regrets TV distributors interconnect pacts without any written document

    TDSAT regrets TV distributors interconnect pacts without any written document

    NEW DELHI: Noting that a large number of cases keep coming up before it suffer from the ‘malaise of distributors of TV channels entering into interconnect arrangements without any agreement in writing (or at any rate a definitive agreement) as mandated by law’. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has observed that ‘oral arrangements may appear expedient and profitable but with the passage of time, the relationship becomes both strained and hurtful.’

    Disposing off three petitions involving 375 local cable operators, one by the Karnataka State Digital Cable TV Operators Welfare Association against Siti Cable Networks and the other by Cable Operators Sangram Association, Kolkata against Hathway Cable and Datacom, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said a large percentage of cases coming to the tribunal from the broadcasting sector have their root cause in the absence of any agreement in writing between the parties. “What is more  regrettable” is the fact that the cases in which two distributors of TV signals happen to be in interconnect arrangement without any agreement in writing is not confined only to analogue transmission but arise almost in equal numbers under the Digital Addressable System regime.

    In the two Kolkata cases, all the 102 LCOs and Hathway are directed to execute either the Model Interconnection Agreement based on mutual negotiations or failing this, the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days as there is no interconnect agreement between the two sides.

    TRAI made it clear that in case no interconnection agreement in writing comes into existence between the LCOs and The MSOs, Siti Cable in the Karnataka case and Hathway (in the Kolkata case) will be obliged to discontinue the supply of signals to the LCOs for any supply of signals beyond that period would be illegal and in contravention of the statutory prohibition.

    In case any of the LCO wishes to shift away from its present MSO, it must give 21 days’ notice to the MSO before migrating to any other distributor of signals.

    As regards the past relationship, in case of any dues that the two MSOs (Siti Cable in Karnataka and Hathway in Kolkata) might claim on the basis of any written agreement or on the basis of any interim order passed by the tribunal in these proceedings, it would be open to them to initiate recovery proceedings against the concerned LCO in accordance with law.

    “Needless to say, no monetary claim for supply of signals may be entertained that is not based on any written agreement.”

    The Tribunal said it was “glad to note that the regulator has moved in and amended the regulations to plug in even the little loop-hole that was misused for continuing the supply of signals under DAS transmission even after the expiry of the agreement. Further, by another amendment in the Regulations it has removed the ambivalence that was created in the scheme of interconnections as result of fixing the shares of the MSO and the LCO by the Tariff Order dated 10 July 2010 as amended on 30 April 2012.”

    The two amendments in the Interconnect Regulations 2012 made by TRAI during the pendency of these petitions leave nothing for adjudication in these matters and all that is required is to direct the parties to simply follow the law.

    In the Karnataka LCO petition, the Tribunal said all the 269 LCOs will be free either to continue with the existing agreements or to switch over to either the Model Interconnection Agreement or the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days.  Each of the LCOs should intimate Siti Cable whether or not it wishes to continue with the existing agreement. Those exercising the option not to continue with the existing agreement may further negotiate with Siti Cable for execution of the Model Interconnection Agreement failing which both sides must execute the Standard Interconnection Agreement within 30 days from today.

    The LCOs operate in Bengaluru which came under DAS transmission in Phase-11. All the LCOs represented through this petition are receiving their signals from the Siti Cable.  The petition was filed on 24 August 2015 challenging the disconnection notices issued by the MSO under clauses 6.2 and 6.5 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable    Television Systems) Regulations2012 issued on grounds of non-payment of the monthly subscription dues. Mutual negotiations before the Mediation Centre failed.

    On 15 December 2015, it was stated on behalf of the MSO that as  on 31 October 2015, the cumulative dues against the 269 LCOs amounted to Rs l.65 crore for the a Ia carte channels and for the channels that are given to the LCOs in bouquets, approximately Rs 25 lakh calculated @ Rs.60 per STB. It was also stated on behalf of the MSO that under the agreement with certain broadcasters, it was getting the broadcasters’ channels on the latter’s RIO rates and it was no longer possible for it to give those channels in any packages and any LCO wanting those channels could take them on RIO rates.

    The Kolkata petitions were filed by the Association on behalf of 42 LCOs and later on behalf of another 60LCOs. All these LCOs operate in Kolkata and receive TV signals from Hathway. Most of the LCOs are operating in areas that came under DAS transmission in phase-II and a few are operating in areas that come under DAS transmission in phase-III. In these two cases, the LCOs sought a direction to the MSO to restore supply  of  signals  to  some  of  the  STBs  that,  they  alleged,  were  disconnected arbitrarily and not to interfere with the smooth and good quality supply of signals to the LCOs.

    According to the petitioner, as per the understanding between the two sides, they were liable to pay Rs 110 per STB as monthly subscription fee for all the channels being received by them and regardless of the subscription fee charged by them from the individual subscribers but the MSO had raised the subscription fee and was trying to enforce package   billing that would further greatly increase the   monthly subscription fee.  Though the parties are in interconnect arrangement for a long time, there is no interconnect agreements.

     

  • TDSAT asks Karnataka LCOs & Siti Cable to resolve dispute over payment & STB quality

    TDSAT asks Karnataka LCOs & Siti Cable to resolve dispute over payment & STB quality

    NEW DELHI: Karnataka State Digital Cable TV Operators Welfare Association and Siti Cable Networks have been asked to resolve their disputes relating to accounts as well as quality of set top boxes (STBS) before a mediation centre by 30 September.

     

    Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT) chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh however said status quo would be maintained till this exercise is completed.

     

    Furthermore, the Tribunal said any one of the two parties were free to mention the matter before the Tribunal in case it is not satisfied with the mediation.

     

    The Karnataka Association represents 269 cable operators and its counsel Nittin Bhatia claimed that the STBs were of very poor quality and it was adversely affecting the viewing quality of the signals supplied by Siti Cable.

     

    He said that all the cable operators who were part of the petition were willing and prepared to make payment of the monthly subscription fees at the rate of Rs 60 per month. He also stated that the cable operators were also willing to have a reconciliation of accounts and if any dues are found against them at the rate of Rs 60 per month, they would clear all the dues without delay.

     

    Cable operators represented in the petition were also willing to introduce package-based transmission as directed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), as in that case the cable operators would also be entitled to certain benefits.

     

    Siti Cable counsel Upender Thakur said there was a dispute regarding the number of cable operators involved. He also said large sums are due against the cable operators and in any event Siti Cable is bound to follow TRAI’s direction to introduce package-based transmission of channels. 

     

    The Tribunal said the parties should first try to resolve their disputes through mediation. It asked the mediator to try to conclude the matter expeditiously.