ITV

Tag: TDSAT

  • TDSAT: MSO Honey Sky Vision’s petition against INX News dismissed

    TDSAT: MSO Honey Sky Vision’s petition against INX News dismissed

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a petition by multi-system operator Honey Sky Vision wanting a decree against INX News for certain payments.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said, “Since the agreement itself fails to get our acceptance and absence of invoices and proper statement of account, there is no justification for entertaining this petition. Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.”

    Honey Sky Vision had filed for issuance of order/decree in its favour and against INX News for an amount of Rs 23,59,560 as the alleged outstanding amount due in lieu of placement of channel News X on its network. Additionally an order awarding interest at the rate of 18 percent in favour of the petitioner had also been sought.

    The case of the MSO is that the INX News had entered into an agreement with it for placement of its channel News X on the petitioner’s network. The agreement was for the period 28 September 2011 to 27 September.2012 and for a consideration of Rs. 21 lakh per annum plus service tax as payable.

    The MSO claimed it complied with all its obligations; carried/placed News X at desired frequency/band to the complete satisfaction of the respondent whose representatives/officials regularly visited the networks/units of the petitioner in various areas of Delhi.

    The petitioner also claims to have raised/provided monthly invoices to the respondent for placement of its channel. However, INX News completely denied all allegations made by the petitioner including execution of any placement agreement between the parties.

    The MSO produced copy of a placement agreement which only bore its representative’s signature and not those of INX News. The MSO also failed to produce the invoices it claimed to have raised.

    The tribunal, which also examined witnesses, said, “In view of facts emerging on the basis of pleadings, documents and evidences adduced, it is extremely difficult to accept the agreement, in the form it has been produced before us, as a legitimate and validly executed agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. Rather we hold and find that there was no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent.”

  • TDSAT: Sai Prasad Media to pay UCN Cable Rs 67 lakh with 8% interest

    TDSAT: Sai Prasad Media to pay UCN Cable Rs 67 lakh with 8% interest

    NEW DELHI: Sai Prasad Media Pvt Ltd has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay to UCN Cable Network Pvt Ltd a sum of Rs 67,21,500 with interest at the rate of 8 percent from 28 August 2015 till date of payment for carrying the News Express channel on its network.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava, who heard the matter ex parte as Sai Prasad Media did not put in an appearance, came to their judgment on the basis of the documents presented and the lone witness examined.

    The tribunal said: “In view of the facts and circumstances as well as documents and evidences available in support of petitioner’s claim, as well as consistent refusal on the part of respondent to present its  case by way of nonappearance,  we find  and hold that the agreement has been acted upon by both sides; albeit  only partially by the respondent.”

    While UCN Cable had demanded interest at 24 per cent, the Tribunal confined it to 8 per cent but said the payment has to be made within eight weeks.

    The petitioner said it had entered into an agreement dated 29 October 2012 with the respondent for the period 1 August to mid-.2013 for carrying the latter’s channel News Express on its network. According to the petitioner, a fresh agreement dated 14 June 2014 was again executed between the petitioner and the respondent for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. The consideration money for placement of the news channel (News Express) was Rs 75 lakh excluding applicable service tax.

    UCN says it carried the channels from its network and placed them on the desired frequency as mentioned in the agreement; and raised regular invoices upon the respondent. However, the respondent in breach of the terms of the agreement did not make payment of the agreed amount; and the total outstanding as on 31 March 2015 amounted to Rs 67,21,500. The petitioner has also submitted that under the previous agreement as well, Sai Prasad Media had defaulted to the extent of Rs.93,63,328 due and payable to the petitioner till 31 March 2014.

    It has been stated that only in pursuance of a notice of 5 March 2014, Sai Prasad Media made a payment of Rs 90,55,038 on 7 April 2014. However, no payment was received from Sai Prasad Media thereafter. It has been stated that another notice dated 18 March 2015 was served upon the respondent for payment of Rs 67,21,500.

    The sole witness on behalf of the petitioner Amit Aggarwal, working as manager, Legal in the petitioner company submitted his evidence through affidavit and he has formally proved the documents annexed with the petition. Aggarwal was examined by the Advocate Commissioner and his evidence has been taken on record.

  • TDSAT: Sai Prasad Media to pay UCN Cable Rs 67 lakh with 8% interest

    TDSAT: Sai Prasad Media to pay UCN Cable Rs 67 lakh with 8% interest

    NEW DELHI: Sai Prasad Media Pvt Ltd has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay to UCN Cable Network Pvt Ltd a sum of Rs 67,21,500 with interest at the rate of 8 percent from 28 August 2015 till date of payment for carrying the News Express channel on its network.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava, who heard the matter ex parte as Sai Prasad Media did not put in an appearance, came to their judgment on the basis of the documents presented and the lone witness examined.

    The tribunal said: “In view of the facts and circumstances as well as documents and evidences available in support of petitioner’s claim, as well as consistent refusal on the part of respondent to present its  case by way of nonappearance,  we find  and hold that the agreement has been acted upon by both sides; albeit  only partially by the respondent.”

    While UCN Cable had demanded interest at 24 per cent, the Tribunal confined it to 8 per cent but said the payment has to be made within eight weeks.

    The petitioner said it had entered into an agreement dated 29 October 2012 with the respondent for the period 1 August to mid-.2013 for carrying the latter’s channel News Express on its network. According to the petitioner, a fresh agreement dated 14 June 2014 was again executed between the petitioner and the respondent for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. The consideration money for placement of the news channel (News Express) was Rs 75 lakh excluding applicable service tax.

    UCN says it carried the channels from its network and placed them on the desired frequency as mentioned in the agreement; and raised regular invoices upon the respondent. However, the respondent in breach of the terms of the agreement did not make payment of the agreed amount; and the total outstanding as on 31 March 2015 amounted to Rs 67,21,500. The petitioner has also submitted that under the previous agreement as well, Sai Prasad Media had defaulted to the extent of Rs.93,63,328 due and payable to the petitioner till 31 March 2014.

    It has been stated that only in pursuance of a notice of 5 March 2014, Sai Prasad Media made a payment of Rs 90,55,038 on 7 April 2014. However, no payment was received from Sai Prasad Media thereafter. It has been stated that another notice dated 18 March 2015 was served upon the respondent for payment of Rs 67,21,500.

    The sole witness on behalf of the petitioner Amit Aggarwal, working as manager, Legal in the petitioner company submitted his evidence through affidavit and he has formally proved the documents annexed with the petition. Aggarwal was examined by the Advocate Commissioner and his evidence has been taken on record.

  • Challenge to denial of security clearance by Home Ministry not maintainable before TDSAT

    Challenge to denial of security clearance by Home Ministry not maintainable before TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: Can the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal examine denial of security clearance to multi system operators? Clearly, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava have held that this falls outside the ambit of Section 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act.

    A petition by Positiv TV Pvt Ltd was dismissed by the tribunal as Information and Broadcasting ministry counsel Rajeev Sharma said permission to set up teleport (uplinking hub) at Guwahati and Noida had been refused because the Home ministry had refused to give security clearance as required under clause 9.2 read with clauses 10.4, 5.8 and 5.9 of the Guidelines for Grant of Permission dated 5 December 2011.

    The I and B ministry had refused permission in a letter issued on 3 March.
    The tribunal noted that the core question that arose for adjudication was not the cancellation of permission by the MIB but the decision of the MHA to not grant the security clearance to the petitioner.

    Home ministry counsel Anshuman Upadhyay described as incorrect the statement by Positiv counsel Mukul Gupta that his client had not been informed about the Home ministry decision.

    The tribunal said: “We are clearly of the view that the decision of the MHA to grant or not to grant security clearance to a telecom service provider does not come within the ambit of section 14 A and thus lies beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal”. 

    It therefore dismissed as not maintainable the petition, “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case”.

    However, the tribunal said it will be open to the petitioner to seek its remedies before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.

  • Challenge to denial of security clearance by Home Ministry not maintainable before TDSAT

    Challenge to denial of security clearance by Home Ministry not maintainable before TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: Can the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal examine denial of security clearance to multi system operators? Clearly, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava have held that this falls outside the ambit of Section 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act.

    A petition by Positiv TV Pvt Ltd was dismissed by the tribunal as Information and Broadcasting ministry counsel Rajeev Sharma said permission to set up teleport (uplinking hub) at Guwahati and Noida had been refused because the Home ministry had refused to give security clearance as required under clause 9.2 read with clauses 10.4, 5.8 and 5.9 of the Guidelines for Grant of Permission dated 5 December 2011.

    The I and B ministry had refused permission in a letter issued on 3 March.
    The tribunal noted that the core question that arose for adjudication was not the cancellation of permission by the MIB but the decision of the MHA to not grant the security clearance to the petitioner.

    Home ministry counsel Anshuman Upadhyay described as incorrect the statement by Positiv counsel Mukul Gupta that his client had not been informed about the Home ministry decision.

    The tribunal said: “We are clearly of the view that the decision of the MHA to grant or not to grant security clearance to a telecom service provider does not come within the ambit of section 14 A and thus lies beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal”. 

    It therefore dismissed as not maintainable the petition, “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case”.

    However, the tribunal said it will be open to the petitioner to seek its remedies before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.

  • TDSAT: IndiaCast to restore signals to Ortel against interim payment

    TDSAT: IndiaCast to restore signals to Ortel against interim payment

    NEW DELHI: IndiaCast Distribution Pvt Ltd has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to restore signals to Ortel Communications Ltd on receipt of a sum of Rs one crore as an interim measure. Chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said that both parties should reconcile their accounts and Ortel will make the balance payment within two weeks thereof.

    The matter has been listed for further hearing on 30 May, while noting that Ortel counsel Navin Chawla did not seriously dispute the amounts due,but wanted the signals to be restored and was willing to sign a new interconnect agreement on IndiaCast’s RIO terms.

    Ortel had approached the tribunal against the disconnection notice. According to IndiaCast, Ortel had dues amounting to Rs 1.96 crore as on 31 March when the interconnect agreement came to an end and so the signal was disconnected on 28 March.

    IndiaCast counsel Ramji Srinivasan contended that Ortel had continued to disseminate the signals of his client even after 28 March and should be asked to pay for that as well. However, Chawla contested any allegation of unauthorized transmission.

    The tribunal said this issue could be raised during the reconciliation of accounts and if there was no agreement between the parties, they would have to abide by the order of the tribunal. On restoration of signals, IndiaCast was also free to hold an audit of the headends of Ortel.

    The tribunal also made it clear that after the restoration of signals, the subscription to be paid would be according to IndiaCast RIO terms expected by 1 May, subject to the final order of the tribunal. India Cast was free to disconnect in the event of failure to make payments as directed by the tribunal or non-cooperation during the reconciliation.

  • TDSAT: IndiaCast to restore signals to Ortel against interim payment

    TDSAT: IndiaCast to restore signals to Ortel against interim payment

    NEW DELHI: IndiaCast Distribution Pvt Ltd has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to restore signals to Ortel Communications Ltd on receipt of a sum of Rs one crore as an interim measure. Chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said that both parties should reconcile their accounts and Ortel will make the balance payment within two weeks thereof.

    The matter has been listed for further hearing on 30 May, while noting that Ortel counsel Navin Chawla did not seriously dispute the amounts due,but wanted the signals to be restored and was willing to sign a new interconnect agreement on IndiaCast’s RIO terms.

    Ortel had approached the tribunal against the disconnection notice. According to IndiaCast, Ortel had dues amounting to Rs 1.96 crore as on 31 March when the interconnect agreement came to an end and so the signal was disconnected on 28 March.

    IndiaCast counsel Ramji Srinivasan contended that Ortel had continued to disseminate the signals of his client even after 28 March and should be asked to pay for that as well. However, Chawla contested any allegation of unauthorized transmission.

    The tribunal said this issue could be raised during the reconciliation of accounts and if there was no agreement between the parties, they would have to abide by the order of the tribunal. On restoration of signals, IndiaCast was also free to hold an audit of the headends of Ortel.

    The tribunal also made it clear that after the restoration of signals, the subscription to be paid would be according to IndiaCast RIO terms expected by 1 May, subject to the final order of the tribunal. India Cast was free to disconnect in the event of failure to make payments as directed by the tribunal or non-cooperation during the reconciliation.

  • TDSAT: Four broadcasters asked to work out commercial deals with MSO

    TDSAT: Four broadcasters asked to work out commercial deals with MSO

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal today asked four broadcasters to work out commercial terms with M.C. Transmissions towards working out fresh interconnect agreements.

    Chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava gave the direction to the broadcasters – Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd, Star India, Taj Television, and Indiacast UTV Media Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd – after accepting the supplementary report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd about the headend of MC Transmissions. Tbe Tribunal listed the matter for further hearing on 26 April.  

    Earlier, the broadcasters had said that despite a BECIL report pointing out some defects, the MSO had not corrected them.  Thereupon, the Tribunal had asked the broadcasters to constitute a joint team or agree upon one of them getting the inspection done by its technical team to examine the headend of M.C. Transmissions for any defects.

    However, the broadcasters reported that they were still not satisfied with the headends, following which BECIL was asked to conduct a fresh examination. “In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no other course but to ask the BECIL to make a supplementary report specific to its earlier findings. Since the supplementary report is on a very limited and specific issue, BECIL, as a special case, will waive its fee”, the Tribunal had said, giving BECIL one week for a its report which was presented today.

  • TDSAT: Four broadcasters asked to work out commercial deals with MSO

    TDSAT: Four broadcasters asked to work out commercial deals with MSO

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal today asked four broadcasters to work out commercial terms with M.C. Transmissions towards working out fresh interconnect agreements.

    Chairman justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava gave the direction to the broadcasters – Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd, Star India, Taj Television, and Indiacast UTV Media Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd – after accepting the supplementary report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd about the headend of MC Transmissions. Tbe Tribunal listed the matter for further hearing on 26 April.  

    Earlier, the broadcasters had said that despite a BECIL report pointing out some defects, the MSO had not corrected them.  Thereupon, the Tribunal had asked the broadcasters to constitute a joint team or agree upon one of them getting the inspection done by its technical team to examine the headend of M.C. Transmissions for any defects.

    However, the broadcasters reported that they were still not satisfied with the headends, following which BECIL was asked to conduct a fresh examination. “In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no other course but to ask the BECIL to make a supplementary report specific to its earlier findings. Since the supplementary report is on a very limited and specific issue, BECIL, as a special case, will waive its fee”, the Tribunal had said, giving BECIL one week for a its report which was presented today.

  • TDSAT wants to know from MIB if it can adjudicate on denial of security clearances to new TV channels

    TDSAT wants to know from MIB if it can adjudicate on denial of security clearances to new TV channels

    New Delhi: With the Home ministry holding that the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of denial of security clearances, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has been asked to present its point of view.

    In a petition filed by Positiv TV Pvt. Ltd, chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said: “Before taking up the matter any further, we would like the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting also to make its stand clear. We accordingly direct Rajeev Sharma to file the reply on behalf of the ministry and listed the matter for 26 April.

    The Home ministry had filed its reply in which apart from contesting the petition on merits, it had raised objections to the maintainability of the petition before the tribunal taking the position that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of denial of security clearance to the petitioner.

    Earlier last year, the I and B ministry had said the Home ministry had in principle agreed that security clearances would not be needed for multi-system operators, but no such assurance was given with regard to those who had applied to start new television channels.