ITV

Tag: TDSAT

  • Petition against Den rejected as TDSAT notes petitioner is a joint venture of the MSO

    Petition against Den rejected as TDSAT notes petitioner is a joint venture of the MSO

    New Delhi: Dismissing it as not maintainable, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has noted that the petition that has been filed  by Fortune (Baroda) Network Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat, against Den Networks of which it is a joint venture.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava noted that Den Networks held the majority share of 51 per cent in the joint venture company.

    The petition had been filed by one Venus Patel who claimed to be the promoter director of the petitioner company.  There was no authorization by the Board of the petitioner company that has among its members also some nominee directors from Den. The petition was filed on the strength of an “authorization” signed by Venus Patel himself and one Kirti Bhai Patel who described themselves as promoter directors.

    The Tribunal noted that: “It is evident that there is a dispute in regard to the control of the petitioner company. Both the nature of the real dispute and the manner in which this petition is filed render it not maintainable before the Tribunal”.

    The Tribunal noted that earlier, one Jayesh Patel and some others filed a petition against Den and the present petitioner Fortune (Baroda) Network Pvt. Ltd and had been dismissed on 4 August last year. 

    The present petition was filed for directions to Den to enter into the fresh subscription agreement for the y ear 2014-15 on reasonable terms and conditions with the petitioner for the DAS phase; immediately re-connect the signals of the petitioner; charge the petitioner at the rate of Rs.46 per STB as an interim measure as directed by the Tribunal in order dated 31 October 2013 and some other reliefs.

  • TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    New Delhi: Even as it dismissed a petition by Malwa Cable Operators seeking cable TV signals, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to ‘ponder over and address’ why there were no other multisystem operators in the area.

    It said the rejection of the petition by the Malwa Cable Operators Sangarsh Committee seeking signals from Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd was ‘not due to any lacuna in the law’.

    “It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the regulator to ponder over and to address,” chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment yesterday.

    They said: “On a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we come to the conclusion that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal”.

    Apart from relying on its own previous judgments, the Tribunal noted that the MSO had made clear that it was not supplying signals in analogue mode to any LCO in the State of Punjab and that it was willing to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs “as per its rate card on the basis of which alone it is supplying signals to other LCOs in the state.”

    The Tribunal also took note of an earlier allegation by the LCOs that Fastway had set up a dummy operator which was supplying signals in the area of operation of the petitioner LCOs in analogue mode and on much cheaper rates.

    Referring to arguments raised by lawyers from both sides on the must provide and non-discrimination clauses, the Tribunal said: “In our view, the two principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘on-discrimination’ as the basis of interconnection cannot operate separately but are inseparable. All that those principles mean is that a distributor cannot refuse to supply signals to a LCO and it must supply signals to the LCO seeking signals from it in the same mode and on the same terms and at the same rate at which it might be giving its signals to another LCO, comparable to the one seeking the signals. As long as the distributor does not supply signals to anyone except in DAS mode, the principle of “must provide” cannot be invoked to compel it to supply signals to anyone in analogue mode”.

    Counsel Abhishek Malhotra had during arguments referred to clause 3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 and submitted that the scheme of interconnection envisaged by the regulations was based on the twin principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘non-discrimination’. He submitted that as one of the principles of interconnection was ‘must provide’ the respondent was obliged to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs and they would be free to retransmit the signals in their area of operation in analogue mode as that area was yet to come under the DAS regime.

    The Tribunal noted that it was on a consideration of the recommendations made by TRAI that the Central Government issued the notification dated 11 November 2011 (later amended on 11 September 2014) introducing digitisation of cable TV systems in four phases over a period of four and a half years. “As noted above, the language of the notification is such that it would be unlawful to make transmission in analogue mode in any part of the country that has come under the DAS regime as per the schedule given in the notification. But it is not unlawful to make transmission through digital addressable system in any part of the country that is yet to come under the DAS regime”, the Tribunal said.

    Referring to arguments by Fastway counsel Naveen Chawla, the Tribunal said there was nothing to show that Fastway had committed any breach of any regulations or tariff orders framed by TRAI in either making the packages of channels or in fixing the rates of those packages. Moreover, the language of the notification issued under Section 4A of the CTN(R) Act and the relevant provisions of TRAI regulation is quite plain and to give them any other meaning on the plea of hardship caused to the LCOs would be doing violence to the plain language of the notification and the regulations.

    LCO counsel Vineet Bhagat had submitted that the scheme of digitisation was a phased scheme and it would be unreasonable and unjust to thrust upon the poor LCOs the digital addressable system of transmission even before the date of its enforcement under the Government notification.

  • TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    New Delhi: Even as it dismissed a petition by Malwa Cable Operators seeking cable TV signals, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to ‘ponder over and address’ why there were no other multisystem operators in the area.

    It said the rejection of the petition by the Malwa Cable Operators Sangarsh Committee seeking signals from Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd was ‘not due to any lacuna in the law’.

    “It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the regulator to ponder over and to address,” chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment yesterday.

    They said: “On a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we come to the conclusion that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal”.

    Apart from relying on its own previous judgments, the Tribunal noted that the MSO had made clear that it was not supplying signals in analogue mode to any LCO in the State of Punjab and that it was willing to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs “as per its rate card on the basis of which alone it is supplying signals to other LCOs in the state.”

    The Tribunal also took note of an earlier allegation by the LCOs that Fastway had set up a dummy operator which was supplying signals in the area of operation of the petitioner LCOs in analogue mode and on much cheaper rates.

    Referring to arguments raised by lawyers from both sides on the must provide and non-discrimination clauses, the Tribunal said: “In our view, the two principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘on-discrimination’ as the basis of interconnection cannot operate separately but are inseparable. All that those principles mean is that a distributor cannot refuse to supply signals to a LCO and it must supply signals to the LCO seeking signals from it in the same mode and on the same terms and at the same rate at which it might be giving its signals to another LCO, comparable to the one seeking the signals. As long as the distributor does not supply signals to anyone except in DAS mode, the principle of “must provide” cannot be invoked to compel it to supply signals to anyone in analogue mode”.

    Counsel Abhishek Malhotra had during arguments referred to clause 3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 and submitted that the scheme of interconnection envisaged by the regulations was based on the twin principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘non-discrimination’. He submitted that as one of the principles of interconnection was ‘must provide’ the respondent was obliged to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs and they would be free to retransmit the signals in their area of operation in analogue mode as that area was yet to come under the DAS regime.

    The Tribunal noted that it was on a consideration of the recommendations made by TRAI that the Central Government issued the notification dated 11 November 2011 (later amended on 11 September 2014) introducing digitisation of cable TV systems in four phases over a period of four and a half years. “As noted above, the language of the notification is such that it would be unlawful to make transmission in analogue mode in any part of the country that has come under the DAS regime as per the schedule given in the notification. But it is not unlawful to make transmission through digital addressable system in any part of the country that is yet to come under the DAS regime”, the Tribunal said.

    Referring to arguments by Fastway counsel Naveen Chawla, the Tribunal said there was nothing to show that Fastway had committed any breach of any regulations or tariff orders framed by TRAI in either making the packages of channels or in fixing the rates of those packages. Moreover, the language of the notification issued under Section 4A of the CTN(R) Act and the relevant provisions of TRAI regulation is quite plain and to give them any other meaning on the plea of hardship caused to the LCOs would be doing violence to the plain language of the notification and the regulations.

    LCO counsel Vineet Bhagat had submitted that the scheme of digitisation was a phased scheme and it would be unreasonable and unjust to thrust upon the poor LCOs the digital addressable system of transmission even before the date of its enforcement under the Government notification.

  • SC declines to crush TDSAT order that HITS players be treated at par with pan-India MSOs

    SC declines to crush TDSAT order that HITS players be treated at par with pan-India MSOs

    NEW DELHI: In an order that will not only have far-reaching consequences for broadcasters but may encourage others to take the headend-in-the-sky (HITS) route, the Supreme Court today rejected the challenge to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) view that HITS players should be treated at the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs). 

    The Tribunal had on 7 December last mandated that the reference interconnect order would be the starting point for negotiations between them and the distribution platforms. 

    The apex court decided the matter after hearing both sides on the issues raised.

    The appeal had been filed by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), Star India and Taj TV after a similar appeal had earlier on 22 Januarybeen dismissed in the Delhi High Court as not maintainable on the ground that the broadcaster had an alternative remedy of appealing in the Supreme Court.

    The Tribunal had said, “It is difficult to see a HITS operator as different from a pan-India MSO and in our considered view a HITS operator, in regard to the commercial terms for an interconnect arrangement has to be taken at par with a pan-India MSO and must, therefore, receive the same treatment.” 

    The broadcasters had contended that the Tribunal through its order dated 7 December had completely taken away the freedom of contract. They also contended that the Tribunal had crossed its jurisdiction by passing an order on the TRAI regulation.

    The High Court had said that it did not feel the need to examine whether TDSAT had the jurisdiction to direct broadcasters to treat the HITS operator Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) at the same level as pan-India MSOs.

    That Court had heard arguments presented by Star India and NSTPL, whose petition had been accepted on 7 December by the Tribunal, which had asked Star India and Taj TV to execute fresh agreements with NSTPL. However, TDSAT had kept the operation of the judgment pending till 31 March this year.

    It had said that on past occasions as well similar suggestions were made with the hope of nudging the TRAI to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the regulations. “At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia,” TDSAT had said.

    The Tribunal had, on 18 December, impleaded Zee Turner and others in another petition by Star India against NSTPL and asked the broadcasters to produce the agreements between the broadcasters and major MSOs. It opined that some agreements have to be suspended by Star and Taj TV. 

    Though the TDSAT petition had been filed by NSTPL, it will also help Hinduja Group’s HITS platform NXT Digital, which entered into the fray last year. 

    TDSAT had directed Star and Taj, as well as the other broadcasters who had joined the proceedings as intervenors, to issue fresh RIOs in compliance with the Interconnect Regulations, as explained in the judgment within one month from the date this order becomes operational and effective. It will be then open to NSTPL to execute fresh interconnect agreements with Star and Taj, and with any other broadcasters on the basis of their respective RIOs or on negotiated terms within the limits.

  • SC declines to crush TDSAT order that HITS players be treated at par with pan-India MSOs

    SC declines to crush TDSAT order that HITS players be treated at par with pan-India MSOs

    NEW DELHI: In an order that will not only have far-reaching consequences for broadcasters but may encourage others to take the headend-in-the-sky (HITS) route, the Supreme Court today rejected the challenge to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) view that HITS players should be treated at the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs). 

    The Tribunal had on 7 December last mandated that the reference interconnect order would be the starting point for negotiations between them and the distribution platforms. 

    The apex court decided the matter after hearing both sides on the issues raised.

    The appeal had been filed by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), Star India and Taj TV after a similar appeal had earlier on 22 Januarybeen dismissed in the Delhi High Court as not maintainable on the ground that the broadcaster had an alternative remedy of appealing in the Supreme Court.

    The Tribunal had said, “It is difficult to see a HITS operator as different from a pan-India MSO and in our considered view a HITS operator, in regard to the commercial terms for an interconnect arrangement has to be taken at par with a pan-India MSO and must, therefore, receive the same treatment.” 

    The broadcasters had contended that the Tribunal through its order dated 7 December had completely taken away the freedom of contract. They also contended that the Tribunal had crossed its jurisdiction by passing an order on the TRAI regulation.

    The High Court had said that it did not feel the need to examine whether TDSAT had the jurisdiction to direct broadcasters to treat the HITS operator Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) at the same level as pan-India MSOs.

    That Court had heard arguments presented by Star India and NSTPL, whose petition had been accepted on 7 December by the Tribunal, which had asked Star India and Taj TV to execute fresh agreements with NSTPL. However, TDSAT had kept the operation of the judgment pending till 31 March this year.

    It had said that on past occasions as well similar suggestions were made with the hope of nudging the TRAI to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the regulations. “At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia,” TDSAT had said.

    The Tribunal had, on 18 December, impleaded Zee Turner and others in another petition by Star India against NSTPL and asked the broadcasters to produce the agreements between the broadcasters and major MSOs. It opined that some agreements have to be suspended by Star and Taj TV. 

    Though the TDSAT petition had been filed by NSTPL, it will also help Hinduja Group’s HITS platform NXT Digital, which entered into the fray last year. 

    TDSAT had directed Star and Taj, as well as the other broadcasters who had joined the proceedings as intervenors, to issue fresh RIOs in compliance with the Interconnect Regulations, as explained in the judgment within one month from the date this order becomes operational and effective. It will be then open to NSTPL to execute fresh interconnect agreements with Star and Taj, and with any other broadcasters on the basis of their respective RIOs or on negotiated terms within the limits.

  • TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has agreed to hear a review application by the Mumbai multi system operator (MSO) Home Systems Pvt Ltd on the report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd (BECIL) relating to a case between the petitioner and Star India.

    However, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said that Home Systems must make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order. 

    The payment will be subject to the final result of the review application, the Tribunal said while fixing the date for 4 March. 

    In its order, the Tribunal noted that, “Through the device of this review application, a fresh hearing is practically sought to be made on Home System’s objection to the BECIL reports.”

    Though the Tribunal saw no reason to alter or modify its order of 21 January, it accepted the plea by Home Systems counsel J K Mehta to get more instructions in the matter. Mehta also stated that Hone Systems was willing to make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order “but it would not like to carry the stigma of the Tribunal’s observation that its operations were in contravention of statutory norms.” 

    While noting that it was not averse to hearing Mehta further “as we will not like any injustice to be caused by our order as the petitioner appears to be highly concerned about its credibility,” the Tribunal expressed the hope that BECIL counsel Rajiv Sharma would also be presented in the next hearing along with the author of the supplementary report of BECIL of 6 November last.

  • TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has agreed to hear a review application by the Mumbai multi system operator (MSO) Home Systems Pvt Ltd on the report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd (BECIL) relating to a case between the petitioner and Star India.

    However, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said that Home Systems must make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order. 

    The payment will be subject to the final result of the review application, the Tribunal said while fixing the date for 4 March. 

    In its order, the Tribunal noted that, “Through the device of this review application, a fresh hearing is practically sought to be made on Home System’s objection to the BECIL reports.”

    Though the Tribunal saw no reason to alter or modify its order of 21 January, it accepted the plea by Home Systems counsel J K Mehta to get more instructions in the matter. Mehta also stated that Hone Systems was willing to make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order “but it would not like to carry the stigma of the Tribunal’s observation that its operations were in contravention of statutory norms.” 

    While noting that it was not averse to hearing Mehta further “as we will not like any injustice to be caused by our order as the petitioner appears to be highly concerned about its credibility,” the Tribunal expressed the hope that BECIL counsel Rajiv Sharma would also be presented in the next hearing along with the author of the supplementary report of BECIL of 6 November last.

  • TDSAT directs Karnataka MSO to pay monthly subscription pending dispute with Star India

    TDSAT directs Karnataka MSO to pay monthly subscription pending dispute with Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Karnataka based multi system operator (MSO) V4 Media to make payment of the monthly subscription fee at the rate of the last invoice raised by Star India until settlement of their dispute.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava listed the matter for 2 March and asked V4 Media counsel V Subrahmaniam to file the position about ownership pattern of the MSO.

    Earlier, the parties had been negotiating for entering into a fresh agreement. According to Subrahmaniam, the negotiation was not making any headway because Star India insisted on a 10 per cent increase in the subscriber base over the last agreement.

    V4 Media, however was unable to accept the demand and according to Subrahmaniam, there was no actual increase in the MSO’s subscriber base.

    Subrahmaniam also informed there was a split in the partnership firm V4 Media and after the split, the two sides also split up the earlier subscriber base.

    She submitted that she would file the deed under which the partnership was reconstituted and the current SLR of the V4 Media following the reconstitution at Star India’s Mangalore office. On receipt of this, Star would then inform the Tribunal about its stand in the matter.

  • TDSAT directs Karnataka MSO to pay monthly subscription pending dispute with Star India

    TDSAT directs Karnataka MSO to pay monthly subscription pending dispute with Star India

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Karnataka based multi system operator (MSO) V4 Media to make payment of the monthly subscription fee at the rate of the last invoice raised by Star India until settlement of their dispute.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava listed the matter for 2 March and asked V4 Media counsel V Subrahmaniam to file the position about ownership pattern of the MSO.

    Earlier, the parties had been negotiating for entering into a fresh agreement. According to Subrahmaniam, the negotiation was not making any headway because Star India insisted on a 10 per cent increase in the subscriber base over the last agreement.

    V4 Media, however was unable to accept the demand and according to Subrahmaniam, there was no actual increase in the MSO’s subscriber base.

    Subrahmaniam also informed there was a split in the partnership firm V4 Media and after the split, the two sides also split up the earlier subscriber base.

    She submitted that she would file the deed under which the partnership was reconstituted and the current SLR of the V4 Media following the reconstitution at Star India’s Mangalore office. On receipt of this, Star would then inform the Tribunal about its stand in the matter.

  • Petitions not maintainable if no interconnect agreement is produced: TDSAT

    Petitions not maintainable if no interconnect agreement is produced: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has made it clear in six different petitions relating to recovery of dues in the absence of an interconnect agreement may not be maintainable.

    In five cases filed by IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd against Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Udhistar, Sai Cable Network – II, Vinesh Tyagi, and Anita Sehrawat, the Tribunal noted that an interconnect agreement was executed on 22 August last but the petitions were for recovery of dues prior to that.

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “From the agreement it does not appear that it covered any period prior to the date of its execution.” 

    The Tribunal added that it was “not at all clear as to how and on what basis the respondent was supplying signals in the absence of any agreement in writing.”

    Indusind counsel Kanupriya Gupta was given time to find out if there was any agreement prior to the one annexed with the petition.

    The matter was listed for 2 March but it was made clear that in case there is no agreement prior to the agreement dated 22 August, 2015, this petition for recovery of the alleged dues prior to that date may not be maintainable.

    In another case by IndusInd against Vajeshwar Gundla for recovery of alleged dues of subscription fee and return of set top boxes, the Tribunal was informed that all the 144 STBs had been returned.

    However, the Tribunal said the petition had been filed without any interconnect agreement between the two sides. 

    Vajeshwar Gundla counsel Tushar Singh said there was no averment that the relationship between the two sides was on the basis of any agreement in writing.

    However, IndusInd counsel Vandana Jaisingh said there was no mention about the interconnect agreement as it was not traceable and wanted more time. 

    While adjourning the matter for 10 March, the Tribunal said, “It is made clear that in case no interconnect agreement is found to be in existence between the two sides, that will raise a question regarding the very maintainability of this petition.”