ITV

Tag: TDSAT

  • TDSAT directs Sat Guru Sai Cable to pay MSM Media

    TDSAT directs Sat Guru Sai Cable to pay MSM Media

    NEW DELHI: Sat Guru Sai Cable Network has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay a sum of Rs.5,36,173 to MSM Media Distribution Pvt. Ltd as subscription along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent from the date of the filing till final payment.

    Although MSM Media Distribution had demanded Rs 10,30,435, Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava in their judgment of 2 June 2016 held that payment could only be made up to the date of the interconnect agreement even if the petitioner had continued to provide signals.

    According to MSM Media Distribution, it entered into two separate agreements on 19 November 2014 whereby the MSO was authorized to retransmit signals of the channels of the broadcasters received from MSM Discovery or Multi-Screen Media to its subscribers and LCOs’ if applicable in the area of Muzaffarpur (Bihar}. The period of agreement is 1April 2014 to 31 December 2014 in both the cases. The monthly subscription fee for MSM channels was Rs 82,572 and for the TVT channels Rs.1,700 excluding applicable taxes. The subscription agreement, according to the petitioner’s averments, also stipulated payments ofinterest at 18 percent per annum for any late payment of the subscription fee.

    The distributor says that these channels were duly transmitted to the MSO which re-transmitted them to its consumers/subscribers and LCOs.

    It has been stated by the distributor that prior to the conclusion of the agreement, the MSO was reminded several times to renew the agreement and to clear the arrears. The signals were continued on a request by the MSO even after the expiry of the agreement.

    Thereafter, the distributor first issued notices and then public notices in local newspapers and failing to get any reply, deactivated the signals of TVT on 29 April 2015 and MSM channels on 11 May 2015.

    No one appeared in TDSAT on behalf of the MSO despite notices and the case was heard ex parte.

    The tribunal found there was no documentary evidence to support the averments about public notices in prominent newspapers, nor was there any document to suggest it had pleaded with the MSO to renew the agreement.

    In view of that, the tribunal limited the payment to the period of agreement only, Rs 5,23,459 for supply of MSMsignals  and Rs. 12,714 for supply  of TVT signals  thus totalling Rs 5,36,173 only. 

  • TDSAT dismisses Discovery claim against All Digital Networks

    TDSAT dismisses Discovery claim against All Digital Networks

    NEW DELHI: An application by Discovery Communication India, New Delhi for recovery of certain sums from the multi-system operator All Digital Network India Ltd, Karnataka has been dismissed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    Chairperson Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said that the evidence produced by the broadcaster in the form of e-mails from the MSO did not admit to any specific sums.

    The order therefore said that the application could not be accepted under order XII rule 6, and listed the main matter to come up on 17 August 2016.

    The broadcaster initially demanded a sum of Rs 67,01,292 which was later reduced to Rs.59,82,891 due as on 30 June 2015.

    The tribunal in its judgment of 2 June 2016 noted that “It needs here to be clarified that the slight reduction in the amount of claim appears to have been necessitated on account of some recent decisions of the tribunal in which it is held that no claim for recovery of dues may be entertained by the tribunal normally beyond the term of the Interconnect agreement in writing. However, in case the petitioner is able to establish by evidence that after the expiry of the earlier agreement, the parties were in negotiation in regard to the terms of the fresh agreement, the claim for recovery may be extended to a point three months beyond the expiry of the previous agreement.”

    Thee broadcaster has said the two parties had an Interconnect Agreement from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015.

    In one of the e-mails, All Digital has referred to a strategic tie-up with GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd. and the broadcaster was asked to make changes in the name of the MSO.

    From the first email about negotiations being on, the tribunal said, “it is impossible to infer that the respondent admitted its liability for payment of any specified amount to the petitioner much less the specific amount claimed by thepetitioner in its petition, later amended by the affidavit dated 2 February 2016.

    The tribunal said that the email dated 19 May 2015 had “indeed an admission of certain outstanding dues of the petitioner in respect of which it is stated that the payment would be made by GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd. It is, however, evident that the admission is not to the effect that the respondent owes to the petitioner the specified amount as claimed by the petitioner and on the basis of that e-mail, it would not be possible to make any decree as claimed by the petitioner.”

  • TDSAT dismisses Discovery claim against All Digital Networks

    TDSAT dismisses Discovery claim against All Digital Networks

    NEW DELHI: An application by Discovery Communication India, New Delhi for recovery of certain sums from the multi-system operator All Digital Network India Ltd, Karnataka has been dismissed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    Chairperson Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said that the evidence produced by the broadcaster in the form of e-mails from the MSO did not admit to any specific sums.

    The order therefore said that the application could not be accepted under order XII rule 6, and listed the main matter to come up on 17 August 2016.

    The broadcaster initially demanded a sum of Rs 67,01,292 which was later reduced to Rs.59,82,891 due as on 30 June 2015.

    The tribunal in its judgment of 2 June 2016 noted that “It needs here to be clarified that the slight reduction in the amount of claim appears to have been necessitated on account of some recent decisions of the tribunal in which it is held that no claim for recovery of dues may be entertained by the tribunal normally beyond the term of the Interconnect agreement in writing. However, in case the petitioner is able to establish by evidence that after the expiry of the earlier agreement, the parties were in negotiation in regard to the terms of the fresh agreement, the claim for recovery may be extended to a point three months beyond the expiry of the previous agreement.”

    Thee broadcaster has said the two parties had an Interconnect Agreement from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015.

    In one of the e-mails, All Digital has referred to a strategic tie-up with GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd. and the broadcaster was asked to make changes in the name of the MSO.

    From the first email about negotiations being on, the tribunal said, “it is impossible to infer that the respondent admitted its liability for payment of any specified amount to the petitioner much less the specific amount claimed by thepetitioner in its petition, later amended by the affidavit dated 2 February 2016.

    The tribunal said that the email dated 19 May 2015 had “indeed an admission of certain outstanding dues of the petitioner in respect of which it is stated that the payment would be made by GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd. It is, however, evident that the admission is not to the effect that the respondent owes to the petitioner the specified amount as claimed by the petitioner and on the basis of that e-mail, it would not be possible to make any decree as claimed by the petitioner.”

  • Final Hearing matters may be affected till Alam’s successor is found in TDSAT

    Final Hearing matters may be affected till Alam’s successor is found in TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: Justice Aftab Alam, who has chaired the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal for the past three years, is laying down office in just under a week – but has made sure that work is not affected till a successor is appointed.

    With the other member Kuldip Singh retired at the end of March, the tribunal now only has Justice Alam who retires on 16 June and member Bipin Behari Srivastava.

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 2000 clearly stipulates that the Chairman has to be either a former or sitting Supreme Court judge or a sitting or retired Chief Justice of a High Court.

    The selection of the chairman and a maximum of two members has to be made by the central government, and Department of Telecom sources have confirmed that the process has been initiated by the Communication and Information Technology ministry.

    But perhaps keeping in view the time that may elapse before his successor is found, Justice Aftab Alam had on 26 May issued a notice re-constituting work allocation.

    The chairperson said that with effect from 1 June, there will be two benches in TDSAT: the first will have the chairperson and one member, while Bench Two will have ‘Member/Members’.

    He also made clear that Bench two will deal with matters listed for ‘preliminary hearing, directions, and for orders for passing interim orders only.’  This bench may also dispose of cases where a settlement is arrived at either bilaterally or through the Mediation Centre of the tribunal.

    However, while TDSAT will not come to a standstill and will continue to hear new matters and also pass interim orders, this will affect those cases which have been listed for final arguments. These include cases such as the definition of adjusted gross revenue, the direct-to-home arrears case, and the matter relating to digital cable addressable tariffs for commercial establishments like hotels etc.

    Justice Alam directed that this arrangement – issued by him under Section 14B (4)(b) and 14B(5) read with Section 14-1 of the TRAI Act – will continue until further orders.   

  • Final Hearing matters may be affected till Alam’s successor is found in TDSAT

    Final Hearing matters may be affected till Alam’s successor is found in TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: Justice Aftab Alam, who has chaired the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal for the past three years, is laying down office in just under a week – but has made sure that work is not affected till a successor is appointed.

    With the other member Kuldip Singh retired at the end of March, the tribunal now only has Justice Alam who retires on 16 June and member Bipin Behari Srivastava.

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 2000 clearly stipulates that the Chairman has to be either a former or sitting Supreme Court judge or a sitting or retired Chief Justice of a High Court.

    The selection of the chairman and a maximum of two members has to be made by the central government, and Department of Telecom sources have confirmed that the process has been initiated by the Communication and Information Technology ministry.

    But perhaps keeping in view the time that may elapse before his successor is found, Justice Aftab Alam had on 26 May issued a notice re-constituting work allocation.

    The chairperson said that with effect from 1 June, there will be two benches in TDSAT: the first will have the chairperson and one member, while Bench Two will have ‘Member/Members’.

    He also made clear that Bench two will deal with matters listed for ‘preliminary hearing, directions, and for orders for passing interim orders only.’  This bench may also dispose of cases where a settlement is arrived at either bilaterally or through the Mediation Centre of the tribunal.

    However, while TDSAT will not come to a standstill and will continue to hear new matters and also pass interim orders, this will affect those cases which have been listed for final arguments. These include cases such as the definition of adjusted gross revenue, the direct-to-home arrears case, and the matter relating to digital cable addressable tariffs for commercial establishments like hotels etc.

    Justice Alam directed that this arrangement – issued by him under Section 14B (4)(b) and 14B(5) read with Section 14-1 of the TRAI Act – will continue until further orders.   

  • TDSAT directs Zeel to sign RIO based interconnect pacts with five MSOs

    TDSAT directs Zeel to sign RIO based interconnect pacts with five MSOs

    NEW DELHI: Five multi-system operators have been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd (Zeel) a sum of Rs 3 crore to enable the signing of an RIO based interconnect agreement.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said the agreement would be from 19 May, the date from which the petitioners are operating on that basis.

    Listing the matter to come up on 16 August, the tribunal on 2 June made it clear that both the payment of Rs 3 crores and the direction for execution of the RIO based agreement is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and will abide by the final result of the petition.

    The petitions were filed by Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd, Jagsumi Perspectives Pvt Ltd, Novabase Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, and Radiant Digitek Network Pvt. Ltd against a general notice asking all the MSOs who on the date of issuance (11 May) of the fresh RIO by Zee Entertainment did not have a subsisting interconnect agreement with it to execute an agreement based on the RIO. 

    The petitioners were willing to execute an RIO based agreement until the validity and legality of the RIO coming under challenge in this petition and several other petitions on that issue is finally decided by the tribunal.

    But the tribunal said the difficulty was that Zeel said the petitioners owe the sum of Rs 5.4 crores and odd and unless the dues are cleared, it is not inclined even to enter into the RIO based inter connect agreement. But the petitioners say the dues, if properly worked out, would come down to Rs 1,66,16,726, which the petitioners are agreeable to pay.

  • TDSAT directs Zeel to sign RIO based interconnect pacts with five MSOs

    TDSAT directs Zeel to sign RIO based interconnect pacts with five MSOs

    NEW DELHI: Five multi-system operators have been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd (Zeel) a sum of Rs 3 crore to enable the signing of an RIO based interconnect agreement.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said the agreement would be from 19 May, the date from which the petitioners are operating on that basis.

    Listing the matter to come up on 16 August, the tribunal on 2 June made it clear that both the payment of Rs 3 crores and the direction for execution of the RIO based agreement is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and will abide by the final result of the petition.

    The petitions were filed by Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd, Jagsumi Perspectives Pvt Ltd, Novabase Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, and Radiant Digitek Network Pvt. Ltd against a general notice asking all the MSOs who on the date of issuance (11 May) of the fresh RIO by Zee Entertainment did not have a subsisting interconnect agreement with it to execute an agreement based on the RIO. 

    The petitioners were willing to execute an RIO based agreement until the validity and legality of the RIO coming under challenge in this petition and several other petitions on that issue is finally decided by the tribunal.

    But the tribunal said the difficulty was that Zeel said the petitioners owe the sum of Rs 5.4 crores and odd and unless the dues are cleared, it is not inclined even to enter into the RIO based inter connect agreement. But the petitioners say the dues, if properly worked out, would come down to Rs 1,66,16,726, which the petitioners are agreeable to pay.

  • TDSAT: ZEEL not to disconnect signals to Star Broadband Service

    TDSAT: ZEEL not to disconnect signals to Star Broadband Service

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd not to give effect to the disconnection notice sent to Star Broadband Services (I) Pvt. Ltd and continue to supply its TV signals in terms of the earlier arrangements subsisting before the issuance of the notice.

    Listing the matter for 9 August, Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava felt the validity of the RIO and whether or not it is fully in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal, requires serious consideration.

    It said the expression “earlier subsisting arrangement” would include not only the previous interconnect agreement in writing between the two sides (though it might have expired before the publication of the RIO) but also any carriage agreement / placement agreement / discount agreement etc., in case the latter was co-terminus with the interconnect agreement.

    In the next hearing, the Tribunal may hear the parties and make ‘a proper and equitable interim arrangement till a final decision is rendered on this petition’. However, the Tribunal said “It is made clear in case of any default in payment in terms of the subsisting arrangement, it will be open to the broadcaster to proceed in accordance with law.”

    A reply has been filed on behalf of Zeel. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks, the Tribunal said.

    Zeel counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia had with him in a sealed cover the list of MSOs with whom his client entered into interconnect agreements during the period between the Tribunal’s decision of 7 December ( Noida Software Technology Park Ltd. Vs. M/s ZE Zeel. & Others) and the publication of its RIO on 11 May this year.

    Zeel counsel Meet Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for Zee Entertainment submitted that the RIO had been framed and issued directly in pursuance of the Tribunal’s decision and it was being offered on a uniform basis and therefore, there is no reason for the petitioner or for anyone else, not to accept it.

  • TDSAT: ZEEL not to disconnect signals to Star Broadband Service

    TDSAT: ZEEL not to disconnect signals to Star Broadband Service

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd not to give effect to the disconnection notice sent to Star Broadband Services (I) Pvt. Ltd and continue to supply its TV signals in terms of the earlier arrangements subsisting before the issuance of the notice.

    Listing the matter for 9 August, Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava felt the validity of the RIO and whether or not it is fully in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal, requires serious consideration.

    It said the expression “earlier subsisting arrangement” would include not only the previous interconnect agreement in writing between the two sides (though it might have expired before the publication of the RIO) but also any carriage agreement / placement agreement / discount agreement etc., in case the latter was co-terminus with the interconnect agreement.

    In the next hearing, the Tribunal may hear the parties and make ‘a proper and equitable interim arrangement till a final decision is rendered on this petition’. However, the Tribunal said “It is made clear in case of any default in payment in terms of the subsisting arrangement, it will be open to the broadcaster to proceed in accordance with law.”

    A reply has been filed on behalf of Zeel. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks, the Tribunal said.

    Zeel counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia had with him in a sealed cover the list of MSOs with whom his client entered into interconnect agreements during the period between the Tribunal’s decision of 7 December ( Noida Software Technology Park Ltd. Vs. M/s ZE Zeel. & Others) and the publication of its RIO on 11 May this year.

    Zeel counsel Meet Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for Zee Entertainment submitted that the RIO had been framed and issued directly in pursuance of the Tribunal’s decision and it was being offered on a uniform basis and therefore, there is no reason for the petitioner or for anyone else, not to accept it.

  • Pan India Network allows removal of equipment from Prasar Bharati’s premises

    Pan India Network allows removal of equipment from Prasar Bharati’s premises

    NEW DELHI: Pan India Network Infravest Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai is willing and ready to have its equipment removed from the premises of Prasar Bharati licensed out to them under the previous licenses at different kendras.

    These kendras are Nanded, Allahabad, Jalgaon, Varanasi, Agra, Aloka, Amritsar and other kendras in Punjab.

    This was conveyed to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal by Prasar Bharati counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia.

    However, Bhatia made it clear that the Network had not admitted any of the allegations or statements made in the Miscellaneous Applications 152 to 159 of 2016 filed on behalf of the pubcaster.

    In view of the stand taken by the respondents, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava disposed off the applications.

    However, the tribunal directed Pan India to have its equipment removed from the premises in question within 30 days.