ITV

Tag: TDSAT

  • RIO forms basis for final deal, agree Taj and Hathway

    RIO forms basis for final deal, agree Taj and Hathway

    NEW DELHI: Taj Television contended before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal today that though initial signals can be given by the broadcaster or distributor to the multi system operator initially on the basis of mutual negotiation, but this ultimately has to translate into an agreement under the Reference Interconnection Offer (RIO).

     

    Responding to an argument by Taj Television that the RIO had to be signed within 30 days, counsel for Hathway said that the date limit applies to modifications in existing RIO agreements, but the deal between Taj and Hathway had to be a new one since MediaPro had stopped distribution of Zee TV and Turner channels.

     

    Earlier, the Tribunal had fixed for final disposal from 25 August the ‘deep-rooted’ dispute between Hathway and Taj, noting that this would require interpretation of certain clauses of some of the statutory regulations.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh had said: ‘Unfortunately, the dispute between the two sides is playing out in highly aggressive way and one may add in a rather unpleasant manner. It seems to be affecting a large number of people in viewing their favourite TV channels. The disputants themselves are approaching the Tribunal on a weekly basis complaining against the actions of each other and seeking some interim directions of the Tribunal consuming a lot of time on arguments on miscellaneous applications.  It is, therefore, in the larger interest to finally dispose of these cases after hearing all sides at an early date.”

     

    The Tribunal noted that the dispute has arisen at a stage when the earlier fixed fee agreement between the parties has come to end and they are unable to come to agreed terms for a fresh agreement and under the circumstances the MSO has no option but to take the broadcasters’ channels on their RIO terms.

     

    Hathway counsel Arun Kathpalia who concluded his initial arguments today said Hathway has only 10 per cent of the total collections that Taj Television makes from different MSOs. Hathway was paying Rs 85 crore for all channels including Turner (while the figure excluding Turner was Rs 62 crore).

     

    He also said that Hathway had been wrongly accused of making changes in the composition of the packages. In any case, the MSO was not offering the channels on a standalone basis and so the provision under the Quality of Services regulations did not apply to them.

     

    When talks between the two parties failed, he said the RIO was forwarded on 25 January and was to be effective from February.

     

    However,Star Sports Counsel Rakesh Dwivedi said the RIO had been accepted by Hathway in November last year which was revised by Hathway in January this year. Dwivedi wanted to know why the RIO should be made effective from February 2014 when the Subscriber Register had been supplied by Hathway in December last year.  Furthermore, no facts had been shown by Hathway to show the end of pleadings.

    Further arguments will continue tomorrow with counsel for Star expected to conclude his arguments and Hathway responding to them.

  • DAS deadline extended to December 2015

    DAS deadline extended to December 2015

    NEW DELHI: The deadline for the digitisation of cable television systems in the entire country has been put off to December 2015.

     

    While Phase I of digital addressable system (DAS) came into effect in March last year and Phase II later in the year, the entire process was supposed to be completed by December this year.

     

    Information & Broadcasting Ministry secretary Bimal Julka speaking exclusively to  indiantelevision.com said that the government had decided to delay the digitisation deadline by a full year in order to give all those involved enough opportunity to overcome all the unseen hurdles that had come up after the UPA government mandated  DAS and the various analogue sunset dates.

     

    He said that the previous UPA  government had failed to complete all the required work with regard to regulations, licences, permissions etc and so the current NDA government’s  I&B Minister Prakash Javadekar – after consulting all the stakeholders – has decided to put off the final date by one year.

     

    Julka was confident that digitisation would be completed  well before the end of 2015, but said the new last date had been set keeping in mind the various issues that need resolution.

     

    Earlier, the Ministry had said Phase III covering all urban areas (Municipal Corporations/Municipalities) would be digitised by 30 September 2014 and Phase IV covering the rest of India would be digitised by 31 December 2014.

     

    The DAS process had led to several problems including court cases in various parts of the country. In the first phase for the four metros, Chennai could not be covered because of a stay by the Madras High Court. The second phase covered 38 cities with populations of more than one million. However, reports say that analogue systems are still working not only in the metros but also in these cities.

     

    Furthermore, cable operators feel that the set top boxes being imported are of inferior quality with very few facilities for servicing. The MSOs went to the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) challenging the ratio of profit sharing between the various stakeholders. And TDSAT has been flooded with litigation involving broadcasters, MSOs, LCOs and DTH operators over the past year and a half – coinciding with the government’s thrusting digitisation down the throats of those involved in India’s relatively unorganised cable TV ecosystem. 

     

    Julka said that all these issues had been taken into consideration before taking the decision to put off DAS by a year.

  • TDSAT to hear IBF case on tariff in November

    TDSAT to hear IBF case on tariff in November

    MUMBAI: It has been a busy week for the courts. While on one hand, the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) on 21 August heard a case from the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), Viacom 18 and MSM India challenging the tariff order amendment of 16 July that was passed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). On the other, Star India’s case challenging the TRAI order dated 18 July was heard in the Delhi High Court.

     

    Taking into account the Delhi HC order for the Star India case which came out on 19 August, the TDSAT today postponed the next hearing date for 18 November.

     

    The Federation of Hotel and Restaurants Association of India (FHRAI) had asked for refund from broadcasters for deals signed before the order came into existence that will be applicable for the current duration. However the IBF counsel stated that the order only talks of deals taking place in the new regime and the deals for which the FHRAI is asking for refunds have been done in advance.

     

    Considering the Delhi HC order and also IBF’s proposition that in a 2012 judgment, the TDSAT had itself said that when an arrangement is ongoing between parties and a tariff order is issued, it is not applicable with retrospective effect unless mentioned in the order.

     

    Therefore, the current deals signed will be dormant but not terminated till the end of the case. It has asked both parties to ensure all their pleadings are in place by 28 October so that a final verdict can be given on 18 November.

     

    Star India’s case is set for its next hearing on 26 September where it has challenged the regulation itself to which Zee is also a party.

     

    Click here to read order

  • Commercial TV subscriber tariffs: Broadcasters, Star take battle to courts

    Commercial TV subscriber tariffs: Broadcasters, Star take battle to courts

    MUMBAI: It’s the battle of the bill – the commercial cable TV bill, that is. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on 16 July 2014 issued an amendment to its earlier 2004 broadcasting and cable TV tariff order. The amendment brought in new customer categories such as commercial establishments and commercial subscribers. And it also stated that as far as cable TV rates are concerned, there shouldn’t be any differentiation on an ordinary and commercial subscriber and charges for both should be on a per TV set basis.

     

    That amendment has not gone down well with the Indian broadcast community as they have been lobbying for differential rates for commercial subscribers for a long time and the global practice is that commercial establishment and subscribers pay more than common subscribers.

     

    Its representative body, the Indian Broadcasting Federation (IBF) decided to challenge the tariff order for non-digital addressable areas (DAS) in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). And industry leader Star India decided to file a writ petition against the TRAI challenging the order for both non DAS and DAS and other addressable systems in the Delhi High Court.

     

    Coincidentally both the cases came up for hearing on the same day. While the HC declined to give a stay order on the 16 July 2014 tariff order amendment, it has served notices to both the TRAI and the Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India (FHRAI).

     

    The matter has been posted for a full-fledged hearing on 26 September. Till then, the order is maintainable. Meanwhile, the TDSAT has said that it will wait till the HC decides on the case to take any further action.

     

    What Star India has challenged in the HC is that the 16 July 2014 amendment order denies broadcasters the right to directly deal with the hotels. Star India has also appealed that it will have to unnecessarily depend on distribution platform operators DPOs to strike content deals as for commercial establishments, which might be treated as ordinary subscribers unless they specifically charge customers for cable TV subscribers. The broadcaster can only give a differentiated rate to those hotels that categorically mention TV as one of the services, thereby being deeming it fit to be called a commercial subscriber.

     

    The TRAI and FHRAI have been asked to respond to notices by the next hearing.

     

    Click here for the High Court order

  • BECIL asked to audit Den Networks’ systems following dispute with Sun Distribution Services

    BECIL asked to audit Den Networks’ systems following dispute with Sun Distribution Services

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today directed the Broadcasting Engineering Consultants India Ltd (BECIL) to undertake an audit of the systems of Den Networks following a dispute with Sun Distribution Services.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said that KPMG engaged by Sun had undertaken an audit of Den’s head-end in Delhi following an earlier order of the Tribunal, but the report of the auditing agency cast some doubts with regard to the working of Den’s system. 

     

    The Tribunal therefore said: ‘Without going into the details of that report, we think it would be fit and proper to have an audit of the petitioner’s system made by BECIL as provided under the provison to clause 3.4 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) Regulations 2012. ‘

     

    The Tribunal also noted that Den ‘undeniably failed to submit any subscribers’ reports whatsoever’ to Sun, with regard to its various channels for the period November 2012 to July 2013. It also noted that Sun’s counsel had said Den was supplying all its channels without any restriction to all the set top boxes seeded by it to its subscribers, the number of which would run into several lakhs.

     

    After July 2013, the petitioner has been submitting on a monthly basis certain figures relating to the subscribers’ base of the respondent’s different channels, but those too do not conform to the statutory requirements concerning the monthly subscriber management system (SMS) reports, counsel said.

     

    Listing the matter for 29 August, TDSAT listed the issues that BECIL may examine during its audit:

    – Whether or not the CAS and the SMS systems at the petitioner’s head-end are properly integrated and whether or not, it is possible to verify the SMS figures with reference to the data generated from the CAS system.

    – Whether it is technologically possible to find out the true subscriber base for the different channels of the respondent for the period November 2012 to July 2013 by retrieving the relevant data from the petitioner’s CAS system or by any other means.

    – In case it is not possible to find out the true subscriber base for the different channels of the respondent for the period November 2012 to July 2013 with reference to the data retrievable from CAS, what process BECIL might suggest for arriving at a reasonable estimate of the subscriber base for the respondent’s different channels for the period November 2012 to July 2013?

    – Whether or not it is possible to verify the correctness of the subscribers’ figures supplied by the petitioner to the respondent for the period August 2013 to June 2014 with reference to the data retrievable from the petitioner’s CAS system or by any other means. 

    – In case those figures are not verifiable with reference to the data retrievable from the petitioner’s CAS system, what should be the approach for verifying their correctness?

     

    Having regard to nature of the controversy, the BECIL is requested to complete the audit and submit its report within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  Needless to say that Den shall accord full cooperation to BECIL in conduct of the audit and shall also bear the entire cost of the audit. 

     

  • TDSAT to hear Hathway and Taj TV on their ‘aggressive’ dispute later this month

    TDSAT to hear Hathway and Taj TV on their ‘aggressive’ dispute later this month

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today fixed for final disposal on 25 August the ‘deep-rooted’ dispute between Hathway and Taj TV in public interest, noting that this would require interpretation of certain clauses of some of the statutory regulations.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said: ‘Unfortunately, the dispute between the two sides is playing out in a highly aggressive way and one may add in a rather unpleasant manner. It seems to be affecting a large number of people in viewing their favourite TV channels. The disputants themselves are approaching the Tribunal on a weekly basis complaining against the actions of each other and seeking some interim directions of the Tribunal consuming a lot of time on arguments on miscellaneous applications.”

     

    The Tribunal noted that both sides have assured the Tribunal that they would avoid issuing the offensive advertisements against each other.

     

    In the order today, the Tribunal directed Taj TV to file their respective replies in petitions nos 319(C) of 2014 and 47(C) of 2014 by 20 August 2014. In case Hathway wishes to file any rejoinder, it should serve a copy of the rejoinder on the other side by 23 August subject to which it may file the rejoinder on 25 August.

     

    The Tribunal noted that the dispute has arisen at a stage when the earlier fixed fee agreement between the parties has come to end and they were unable to come to agreed terms for a fresh agreement and under the circumstances the MSO has no option but to take the broadcasters’ channels on their RIO terms.

     

    Earlier this month, TDSAT had directed Taj Television to restore with immediate effect the signals of Zee TV channels to Hathway Cable and Datacom pending the final hearing a petition by the latter. The broadcaster had switched off signals to the MSO stating that the two hadn’t reached a solution to their problems.

     

    It had also directed Hathway, as an interim measure to make payment of the monthly subscription fees from 1 April 2014 (in case of in case of Kolkata and Digital Addressable System – II areas) and from 1 May 2014 (in case of Delhi and Mumbai) up to 31 July at the of Rs.21.60 cost per subscriber basis.

     

    Zee channels were earlier being distributed to Hathway by Media Pro but the latter was not in a position to renew the agreements. In view of the Regulations issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India around the same time the earlier agreements came to end.

               

    Thus, the Zee group of channels came to be handled by Taj Television. But when discussions between Hathway and Taj Television for Zee TV channels failed to yield any results, Taj TV on 26 June sent the RIO based agreement executed from its side. There was delay on the part of Hathway in executing the RIO based agreement and in the meanwhile Taj Television issued the disconnection notice under regulation 6.1 on 8 July 2014 and the public notice under regulation 6.5 on 11 July 2014. However, Hathway later counter-signed the RIO based agreement and sent it back to Taj Television which refused to accept a cheque sent by Hathway. This led to the petition by Hathway. 

  • Dispute deepens between Star India and Hathway

    Dispute deepens between Star India and Hathway

    MUMBAI: The case is up for a long hearing, with no resolution coming out soon. Star India and Hathway Cable & Datacom have emerged from another round of the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) hearing with just another date in their hand.

     

    While the earlier interim order still applies, the broadcaster feels that there is an issue of under declaration of subscriber numbers. Earlier last week, Hathway had submitted to Star, its subscriber management system (SMS) report for April to July which according to sources is an average of 4.4 million.

     

    However, a Star India executive informs that it wasn’t satisfied with the declaration and had filed a clarification application regarding number of active subscribers. To this, Hathway responded today in TDSAT that the declared numbers were indeed active subscribers. The MSO had also responded to the application that it had already furnished the required SMS report, post which the broadcaster withdrew it.

     

    Hathway had paid Rs 26.5 crore for DAS I areas of Mumbai and Delhi, DAS areas of Kolkata and DAS II areas. However, the Star executive feels that the MSO has omitted the subscribers of its sports packs and the amount paid should be higher.

     

    “We have now given the details to our auditor to evaluate and then we will be raising invoices on the same,” says the executive.

     

    The case has now been postponed to another date.

     

  • TDSAT expresses displeasure over Hathway-Taj TV squabble, agrees to hear matter next week

    TDSAT expresses displeasure over Hathway-Taj TV squabble, agrees to hear matter next week

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT), which earlier this month gave a lengthy order settling a dispute between Hathway Cable & Datacom and Taj Television, has expressed its ‘deep displeasure over the manner in which both sides are sniping and chipping at each other giving rise to completely futile litigations.’

     

    The comment by TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh came following a new miscellaneous application on the issue by Hathway on 8 August and the announcement by Taj Television that it was also filing a miscellaneous application. The Tribunal listed the matter for further hearing on 13 August.

     

    Earlier this month, TDSAT had directed Taj Television to restore with immediate effect the signals of Zee TV channels to Hathway pending the final hearing of the petition by the latter.

     

    It had also directed Hathway as an interim measure to make payment of the monthly subscription fees from 1 April 2014 (in case of Kolkata and Digital Addressable System – II areas) and from 1 May 2014 (in case of Delhi and Mumbai) up to 31 July at the rate of Rs 21.60 cost per subscriber basis.

     

    The Tribunal asked Taj to reply to the petition filed by Hathway in three weeks and asked the MSO to file a rejoinder if any two weeks thereafter.

     

    However, following a new miscellaneous application by Hathway objecting to certain advertisements and scrolls being carried on Zee channels, TDSAT said, “Having regard to the amounts of revenue that is generated by the broadcasting industry, the vast social space occupied by it and the social role it claims to play, one should have expected the two sides, each of them major players in the industry, to act responsibly and show a modicum of restraint in their dealings with each other but they seem to be freely indulging in unseemly squabbles. What is more, they seem to show no regard much less any respect for the proprieties of judicial proceedings.”

     

    While TDSAT noted that Taj Television counsel Pratibha Singh was prepared to withdraw the advertisements and even invited Hathway counsel Arun Kathpalia to have a discussion with her on the issue, she said that distribution arm for Zee was preparing a miscellaneous application for recall or modification of the Tribunal’s order of 1 August.

     

    The Tribunal said: “It is surprising that an application is proposed to be filed for recall/modification of the order even before our signatures on the order are yet not fully dried. The reason stated for filing the application is even more surprising; it is stated that on that date, the local people at Taj Television and the counsel representing it were not fully posted with the facts, especially in regard to the placement agreements between the two sides.”

     

    Noting that “no party can be stopped from filing an application,” the Tribunal insisted that both parties must be present at the next hearing in person. 

     

    Zee Channels were earlier being distributed to Hathway by Media Pro but the latter was not in a position to renew the agreements in view of the regulations issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India around the same time the earlier agreements came to end.

     

    Thus, the Zee group of channels came to be handled by Taj Television. But when discussions between Hathway and Taj Television for Zee TV channels failed to yield any results, Taj Television on 26 June sent the RIO based agreement executed from its side. There was delay on the part of Hathway in executing the RIO based agreement and in the meanwhile Taj Television issued the disconnection notice under regulation 6.1 on 8 July 2014 and the public notice under regulation 6.5 on 11 July 2014. However, Hathway later counter-signed the RIO based agreement and sent it back to Taj Television which refused to accept a cheque sent by Hathway. This led to the petition by the MSO. 

  • TDSAT directs Taj TV to restore Zee signals to Hathway; to hear MSOs plea late next month

    TDSAT directs Taj TV to restore Zee signals to Hathway; to hear MSOs plea late next month

    NEW DELHI: Taj Television has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to restore with immediate effect the signals of Zee TV channels to Hathway Cable and Datacom, pending final hearing of the petition by the latter.

     

    TDSAT Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh also directed Hathway as an interim measure to make payment of the monthly subscription fees from 1 April 2014 (in case of Kolkata and Digital Addressable System – II areas) and from 1 May 2014 (in case of Delhi and Mumbai) up to 31 July at the rate of Rs 21.60 cost per subscriber basis.

     

    The Tribunal has asked Taj to reply to the petition filed by Hathway in three weeks and asked Hathway to file a rejoinder if any, two weeks thereafter.

     

    Zee channels were earlier being distributed to Hathway by Media Pro but the latter was not in a position to renew the agreements in view of the regulations issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India around the same time the earlier agreements came to end.

     

    Thus, the Zee group of channels came to be handled by Taj Television. But when discussions between Hathway and Taj Television for Zee TV channels failed to yield any results, Taj TV on 26 June sent the RIO based agreement executed from its side. There was delay on the part of Hathway in executing the RIO based agreement and in the meanwhile, Taj Television issued the disconnection notice under regulation 6.1 on 8 July 2014 and the public notice under regulation 6.5 on 11 July 2014.

     

    On 28 July 2014, Hathway counter-signed the RIO based agreement and sent it back to Taj Television.  On the same day, Hathway also sent a cheque dated 31 July for Rs 16.8 crore.  

     

    According to it, this amount was in full payment of the arrears of the monthly subscription fees for the period 1 April to 31 July 2014, calculated at the rate specified under the fixed fee agreements with Media Pro that had expired on 30 March and 30 April.

     

    However, Taj did not accept the cheque and sent it back and deactivated the signals on 31 July.

     

    This led to the present petition by Hathway. During arguments, Hathway maintained that the RIO agreement can only come into effect prospectively and for the past period it can only be asked to make payment on the basis of the fixed fee agreement with Media Pro and at the rates as specified under the earlier agreements.

     

    The Tribunal has identified three main issues for decision:

     

    (i) Whether the RIO based agreement and the rates prescribed under the RIO would apply retrospectively from the date immediately following the expiry of the earlier agreement or prospectively from the date it was executed by both sides?

     

    (ii) Whether in the facts of this case, Hathway’s liability to make payment on RIO rates would arise from 26 June 2014 when the agreement was signed by Taj Television and it was sent to it for its counter signature?

     

    (iii) What would be Hathway’s liability towards payment of monthly subscription fee for the period immediately following the expiry of the earlier agreement and the date on which the RIO agreement between the two sides came into effect?

  • TRAI issues paper aimed at resolving controversial AGR for broadcast, telecom

    TRAI issues paper aimed at resolving controversial AGR for broadcast, telecom

    NEW DELHI: Following a multitude of cases by both telecom and broadcast operators, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has initiated a review of the definition of Gross Revenue (GR) and the permissible deductions to arrive at Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) in the context of the National Telecom Policy 2012.

     

    In a Consultation Paper on the subject, the Authority has examined the components of GR, AGR and minimum presumptive AGR, rates of Licence Fee and Spectrum Usage Charges, formats of statements of revenue and licence fee and audit and verifiability of revenue and licence fee.

     

    Stakeholders are expected to respond to the 24 questions raised in the Consultation Paper by 1 September and counter-comments by 8 September. TRAI has made it clear that there will be no extension to these dates.

     

    The paper on Definition of Revenue Base (AGR) for the Reckoning of Licence Fee and Spectrum Usage Charges will also examine the changes made in the licensing regime, the transition from the administrative allocation regime towards market-determined prices for spectrum, and the conclusion of tenure of many licences. The paper provides the relevant background information on the subject covering various issues involved.

     

    On the definition of AGR specifically, the Authority had in 2012 recommended that only the revenue from the wireless services shall count towards AGR calculation for the limited purpose of calculation of Spectrum Usage Charges (SUC) that would continue to be determined on service area basis, and should be levied only in respect of those service areas where the Licensee holds any access spectrum.

     

    TRAI wants to know whether there is a need to review/revise the definition of GR and AGR in the different licences at this stage; the guiding principles for designing the framework of the revenue sharing regime; and whether the rate of licence fee (LF) be reviewed instead of changing the definitions of GR and AGR, especially with regard to the component of USO levy, in the interest of simplicity, verifiability, and ease of administration.

     

    The paper also wants to know whether the revenue base for levy of licence fee and spectrum usage charges include the entire income of the licensee or only income accruing from licenced activities if the definitions are to be reviewed/revised.

     

    It has asked whether LF be levied as a percentage of GR in place of AGR in the interest of simplicity and ease of application, and should the revenue base for calculating LF and SUC include ‘other operating revenue’ and ‘other income’.

     

    The Government prepared a draft licence agreement for International Long Distance (ILD) services in September, 2000 containing a provision that LF was payable as a percentage of revenue. For the Public Mobile Radio Trunk Service (PMRTS) too, the revenue share regime was made applicable from 1 November 2001.

     

    The definition of AGR has been litigated since 2003. TSPs questioned the inclusion of various components of revenue in the reckoning of AGR as well as the legality of the definition before TDSAT. In 2006, TDSAT, after noting that revenue from non-licensed activities needed to be excluded from the reckonable revenue, asked TRAI to make recommendations on the inclusion or exclusion of the disputed items in the AGR. TRAI made its recommendations on 13 September 2006 and the Tribunal gave its final order in the matter on 30 August 2007 after accepting most (but modifying some) of TRAI’s recommendations.

     

    In the course of finalising the recommendations of the Authority on the reference from TDSAT, the views of DoT were obtained by the Authority through its representative and incorporated in the “Recommendations on components of Adjusted Gross Revenue” dated 13 September 2006. The Authority was informed that the basic rationale adopted by the Government while formulating the definition of AGR was that it should be easy to interpret – so as to pose fewer problems in application and less disputes and litigations, and to make it less prone to reduction in LF liability by way of accounting jugglery; and it should be easy to verify.

     

    The TDSAT’s judgment of 30 August 2007 was taken in appeal by DoT to the Supreme Court and was set aside by its judgment on 11 October 2011 on the grounds, among others, that TDSAT had no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the terms and conditions of the licence including the definition of AGR incorporated in the licence agreement. It was for DoT – and not TRAI and TDSAT – to take a final decision on the definition of AGR. The Supreme Court also held that a licensee can raise a dispute about the computation of AGR relating to a particular demand and that TDSAT can then examine whether the demand was in accordance with the licence agreement and the definition of AGR.

     

    The judgment of the Supreme Court settled important points of law and has clarified the nature of the contractual relationship between the Government as licensor and the TSPs. The judgment also laid down the parameters of institutional responsibility in arriving at the contractual terms and conditions; it held that: litigation regarding the computation of LF continues before the TDSAT in the case of individual demands made on TSPs. It has also been reported that writ petitions re-agitating the revenue share definition have been filed by TSPs in different High Courts.