ITV

Tag: Telecom Disputes Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • TDSAT: Airan Consultants to pay UCN Cable Rs 50 lakh plus interest

    TDSAT: Airan Consultants to pay UCN Cable Rs 50 lakh plus interest

    NEW DELHI: Airan Consultants 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. 50,00,020 with interest at the rate of 8 percent from 5 May 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 Airan Consultants Pvt. Ltd did not put in an appearance, came to their judgment on the basis of the documents presented and the lone witness examined.

    While UCN Cable had demanded interest at 24 per cent, the tribunal confined it to 8 per cent which will be paid till the date of the final payment. 

    The tribunal said in the case of the second agreement, Airan had failed to fulfil its obligation and not even responded to the communication from the petitioner for payment.

    UCN Cable said the two parties executed an agreement in November 2013 for the period 6 November 2013 to 5 November 2014 for carrying the channels of Airan Consultants on its network and placing it in the digital and U band, below 800 mghz in analogue mode in the territory mentioned in the agreement. UCN has stated that it raised invoices in pursuance of this agreement and received payment as well against them. Both parties in furtherance of their relationship executed another channel placement agreement for one year from 6 November 2014 till 5 November 2015. The amount for the placement of the news channel “JIA News” was Rs 89 lakh per annum inclusive of all taxes except service tax and payable quarterly in advance.

    UCN says it fulfilled its obligation in respect of carrying the new channel on its network and placing it as agreed. Accordingly, it raised invoice for an amount of Rs 50,00,020. It stated that Airan sent a photocopy of a cheque dated 15 February.2015 drawn on Bank of India, Corporate Banking Branch, Nagpur, for an amount of Rs 45,000,18 through WhatsApp promising to deposit it directly into UCN’s account. UCN has said that Airan not only failed to deposit the cheque but did not respond either to UCN’s e-mails of 27 February, 9 March, 30 April and 1 May 2015. Thereafter, UCN served a legal notice on 3 August 2015.

  • TDSAT: Airan Consultants to pay UCN Cable Rs 50 lakh plus interest

    TDSAT: Airan Consultants to pay UCN Cable Rs 50 lakh plus interest

    NEW DELHI: Airan Consultants 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. 50,00,020 with interest at the rate of 8 percent from 5 May 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 Airan Consultants Pvt. Ltd did not put in an appearance, came to their judgment on the basis of the documents presented and the lone witness examined.

    While UCN Cable had demanded interest at 24 per cent, the tribunal confined it to 8 per cent which will be paid till the date of the final payment. 

    The tribunal said in the case of the second agreement, Airan had failed to fulfil its obligation and not even responded to the communication from the petitioner for payment.

    UCN Cable said the two parties executed an agreement in November 2013 for the period 6 November 2013 to 5 November 2014 for carrying the channels of Airan Consultants on its network and placing it in the digital and U band, below 800 mghz in analogue mode in the territory mentioned in the agreement. UCN has stated that it raised invoices in pursuance of this agreement and received payment as well against them. Both parties in furtherance of their relationship executed another channel placement agreement for one year from 6 November 2014 till 5 November 2015. The amount for the placement of the news channel “JIA News” was Rs 89 lakh per annum inclusive of all taxes except service tax and payable quarterly in advance.

    UCN says it fulfilled its obligation in respect of carrying the new channel on its network and placing it as agreed. Accordingly, it raised invoice for an amount of Rs 50,00,020. It stated that Airan sent a photocopy of a cheque dated 15 February.2015 drawn on Bank of India, Corporate Banking Branch, Nagpur, for an amount of Rs 45,000,18 through WhatsApp promising to deposit it directly into UCN’s account. UCN has said that Airan not only failed to deposit the cheque but did not respond either to UCN’s e-mails of 27 February, 9 March, 30 April and 1 May 2015. Thereafter, UCN served a legal notice on 3 August 2015.

  • TDSAT questions Dhru Lucky about relationship with GTPL Hathway, restrained from transfering any property

    TDSAT questions Dhru Lucky about relationship with GTPL Hathway, restrained from transfering any property

    NEW DELHI: Dhru Lucky Enterprise Pvt Ltd (Dhru) was today asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to file an affidavit clarifying that it will not transfer its movable or immovable properties to anyone while its case against Star India is pending. Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava asked Dhru representative Sureshbhai Jagubhai Patel to file the affidavit by this evening clarifying the relationship between Dhru and GTPL Hathway. This was a precondition to dispense with his personal appearance.

    After he filed the affidavit as directed by today evening, the tribunal listed the matter to come up on 4 May and exempted him from personal appearance.  Star India was represented by Counsel Arjun Natarajan and Dhru by counsel Upender Thakur.

    Dhru had filed a petition in October 2014 against Star India seeking renewal of lapsed agreements. Subsequently, the tribunal stayed disconnection notices issued to Dhru  by its orders of 12 November and 18 November that year. Dhru thereafter received signals within the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    However, Star India alleged that Dhru had been resorting to rampant piracy. In an order of 16 April 2015, Dhru gave an undertaking that it would confine its operation within the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    Subsequently, Star filed a contempt application against Dhru, on the ground that, in breach of the undertaking contained in order dated 16 April 2015 and it went beyond the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    Dhru was directed on 19 May last year to clearly explain on affidavit the circumstances under which it was operating in Vapi, which is beyond the areas mentioned in th lapsed agreements.

    The tribunal on 28 May last was told by Dhru that it has assigned its network at Vapi and Daman to some other entity, and that, it no longer wishes to carry on with its MSO business.

    Following that order, it was directed to file an affidavit as to its assignment to some other entity. On 17 July, it filed another affidavit where Dhru mentioned that TDSAT had been apprised on 28 May about GTPL Hathway taking over Dhru’s cable business in its entirety. Star India in response pleaded that Dhru was indulging in piracy even on 23 July. Subsequently, GTPL-Hathway was impleaded in the petition as it appeared that Dhru had assigned its business to the distributor.

    TDSAT had on 1 March this year directed the Dhru’s MD Sureshbhai Jagubhai Patel to be present in person. He was also directed to produce the instrument under which Dhru was said to have transferred its LCO business to GTPL-Hathway. However, Patel did not turn up on the next date as it was submitted on behalf of Dhru that Patel was now president of District Panchayat, Daman, and had no control over the activities of Dhru.

    However, the Tribunal directed on 28 March that Patel should be present in person along-with documents on 18 April. Patel was present yesterday and today and the matter was heard on both days.
     

     

  • TDSAT questions Dhru Lucky about relationship with GTPL Hathway, restrained from transfering any property

    TDSAT questions Dhru Lucky about relationship with GTPL Hathway, restrained from transfering any property

    NEW DELHI: Dhru Lucky Enterprise Pvt Ltd (Dhru) was today asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to file an affidavit clarifying that it will not transfer its movable or immovable properties to anyone while its case against Star India is pending. Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava asked Dhru representative Sureshbhai Jagubhai Patel to file the affidavit by this evening clarifying the relationship between Dhru and GTPL Hathway. This was a precondition to dispense with his personal appearance.

    After he filed the affidavit as directed by today evening, the tribunal listed the matter to come up on 4 May and exempted him from personal appearance.  Star India was represented by Counsel Arjun Natarajan and Dhru by counsel Upender Thakur.

    Dhru had filed a petition in October 2014 against Star India seeking renewal of lapsed agreements. Subsequently, the tribunal stayed disconnection notices issued to Dhru  by its orders of 12 November and 18 November that year. Dhru thereafter received signals within the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    However, Star India alleged that Dhru had been resorting to rampant piracy. In an order of 16 April 2015, Dhru gave an undertaking that it would confine its operation within the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    Subsequently, Star filed a contempt application against Dhru, on the ground that, in breach of the undertaking contained in order dated 16 April 2015 and it went beyond the areas mentioned in the lapsed agreements.

    Dhru was directed on 19 May last year to clearly explain on affidavit the circumstances under which it was operating in Vapi, which is beyond the areas mentioned in th lapsed agreements.

    The tribunal on 28 May last was told by Dhru that it has assigned its network at Vapi and Daman to some other entity, and that, it no longer wishes to carry on with its MSO business.

    Following that order, it was directed to file an affidavit as to its assignment to some other entity. On 17 July, it filed another affidavit where Dhru mentioned that TDSAT had been apprised on 28 May about GTPL Hathway taking over Dhru’s cable business in its entirety. Star India in response pleaded that Dhru was indulging in piracy even on 23 July. Subsequently, GTPL-Hathway was impleaded in the petition as it appeared that Dhru had assigned its business to the distributor.

    TDSAT had on 1 March this year directed the Dhru’s MD Sureshbhai Jagubhai Patel to be present in person. He was also directed to produce the instrument under which Dhru was said to have transferred its LCO business to GTPL-Hathway. However, Patel did not turn up on the next date as it was submitted on behalf of Dhru that Patel was now president of District Panchayat, Daman, and had no control over the activities of Dhru.

    However, the Tribunal directed on 28 March that Patel should be present in person along-with documents on 18 April. Patel was present yesterday and today and the matter was heard on both days.
     

     

  • TDSAT reiterates need for agreements to be able to claim payment from MSOs/LCOs even as it allows eight recovery cases

    TDSAT reiterates need for agreements to be able to claim payment from MSOs/LCOs even as it allows eight recovery cases

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has allowed nine recovery petitions by MSM Discovery Pvt Ltd amounting to Rs 31,279,060 even as it reiterated the legal position that no dues can be claimed in cases where there is no agreement in place between the distributor/broadcaster or multisystem operator/local cable operator.

    But the Tribunal noted that seven of the cases related to a period when three months period was permitted for negotiations.

    In seven of the cases, the Tribunal allowed the petitions for recovery of amounts totaling Rs 28,344,942 with interest at eleven per cent from the dates when these became due till the recovery.

    The seven are Gurgaon Digital Network Pvt. Ltd, Maruti Charita Cable Network, Jai Maa Kali CableNetwork, Manoranjan Cable Network, Skyline Network, Site Entertainment Pvt Ltd, and Bareilly City Cable Network.

    The Tribnnal said the the petitioner had duly proved its case by leading cogent oral and documentary evidences that remain unrebutted. There is, therefore, no reason not to accept itscase in those cases.

    Interestingly, all the cases were heard and decided by Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava ex parte as no one appeared for any of the ten petitioners.

    In the case of Irani Cable Network Pvt Ltd and Rathore Media Network amounting to a total of Rs 2,934,118, the disconnection had taken place before the end of agreement for non-payment of subscription and the Tribunal accepted the evidence given by the witnesses for MSM Discovery.

    The Tribunal dismissed the case against Peptech Cable of Chatarpur as it noted that though on thedate of disconnection, the petitioner had dues amounting to Rs.410,130, the dues were nil on thedate of expiry of the agreement as also on the date three months beyond the expiry of theagreement..

  • TDSAT reiterates need for agreements to be able to claim payment from MSOs/LCOs even as it allows eight recovery cases

    TDSAT reiterates need for agreements to be able to claim payment from MSOs/LCOs even as it allows eight recovery cases

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has allowed nine recovery petitions by MSM Discovery Pvt Ltd amounting to Rs 31,279,060 even as it reiterated the legal position that no dues can be claimed in cases where there is no agreement in place between the distributor/broadcaster or multisystem operator/local cable operator.

    But the Tribunal noted that seven of the cases related to a period when three months period was permitted for negotiations.

    In seven of the cases, the Tribunal allowed the petitions for recovery of amounts totaling Rs 28,344,942 with interest at eleven per cent from the dates when these became due till the recovery.

    The seven are Gurgaon Digital Network Pvt. Ltd, Maruti Charita Cable Network, Jai Maa Kali CableNetwork, Manoranjan Cable Network, Skyline Network, Site Entertainment Pvt Ltd, and Bareilly City Cable Network.

    The Tribnnal said the the petitioner had duly proved its case by leading cogent oral and documentary evidences that remain unrebutted. There is, therefore, no reason not to accept itscase in those cases.

    Interestingly, all the cases were heard and decided by Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava ex parte as no one appeared for any of the ten petitioners.

    In the case of Irani Cable Network Pvt Ltd and Rathore Media Network amounting to a total of Rs 2,934,118, the disconnection had taken place before the end of agreement for non-payment of subscription and the Tribunal accepted the evidence given by the witnesses for MSM Discovery.

    The Tribunal dismissed the case against Peptech Cable of Chatarpur as it noted that though on thedate of disconnection, the petitioner had dues amounting to Rs.410,130, the dues were nil on thedate of expiry of the agreement as also on the date three months beyond the expiry of theagreement..

  • Taj TV not to give effect to disconnection notices if GTPL Hathway makes payment as per schedule

    Taj TV not to give effect to disconnection notices if GTPL Hathway makes payment as per schedule

    New Delhi, 12 March: Taj Television has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal not to give effect to its disconnection notice if GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd makes payment according to schedule agreed before it.

    While directing the matter to be listed before the Registrar on 7 April, Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava worked out a formula for payment of Rs 63 crore in five instalments.

    The Tribunal made clear that the last payment of Rs.11 crore in the formula agree upon was to come from GTPL Hathway’s JVs and this would be subject to reconciliation of accounts between the parties which should be completed by 20 March. It said the balance dues after reconciliation of accounts which may be Rs.11 crores or a little more or less must be cleared by 31 March. 

    GTPL Hathway was directed to facilitate the payment of the last installment by its JVs to Taj TV and to ensure that the payments are finally made by 31 March.

    Two other respondents in turn are directed to pay the amount of carriage fee of Rs.22 crores to the petitioner on or before 15April.

    The monthly subscription for the months of February and March 2016 for DAS networks [other than DL GTPL CABLE NET, VAJI Communications and GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd and March, 2016 for Non-DAS will be cleared by 25 April.

    But the Tribunal said: “Needless to say that the payments in terms of the above order will be on-account and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.”

    The two petitions were filed against disconnection notices dated 13 February and 14 February. The disconnection notices are based on grounds of non-payment of monthly subscription fee and non-execution of the fresh agreements.

    According to counsel for the respondent, its cumulative dues against the petitioner (both in DAS and non-DAS) areas amount to Rs.66 crores as on 12 February.

    But counsel for GTPL Hathway strongly argued that the petitioner was entitled to carriage fee from two respondents and the dues of its carriage fee against these two respondents amounted to around Rs.25 crores. The petitioner further argued that the agreement was based on incremental tariff that was recommended by TRAI but which was later on set aside by the Tribunal and on that score also, the petitioner is entitled to adjustment of Rs.11 crores against the dues claimed by the petitioner.

    Counsel for the respondent submitted that as stipulated in the interconnect agreement between the parties, the dues of subscription fee are payable independent of any adjustments, including any adjustment against carriage fee which was the subject matter of a separate agreement between the petitioner and the other two respondents.  In any event, the agreement relating to carriage fee has expired.

    In course of submissions however, it transpired that the dues of carriage fee claimed by the petitioner may come down to Rs.22 crores and similarly the subscription dues of Taj TV against the petitioner may come down to Rs.63 crores.

    The Tribunal thereupon asked GTPL Hathway to pay to Taj TV a sum of Rs.63 crores in five instalments, of which the last would be on 31 March.

     

  • Taj TV not to give effect to disconnection notices if GTPL Hathway makes payment as per schedule

    Taj TV not to give effect to disconnection notices if GTPL Hathway makes payment as per schedule

    New Delhi, 12 March: Taj Television has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal not to give effect to its disconnection notice if GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd makes payment according to schedule agreed before it.

    While directing the matter to be listed before the Registrar on 7 April, Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava worked out a formula for payment of Rs 63 crore in five instalments.

    The Tribunal made clear that the last payment of Rs.11 crore in the formula agree upon was to come from GTPL Hathway’s JVs and this would be subject to reconciliation of accounts between the parties which should be completed by 20 March. It said the balance dues after reconciliation of accounts which may be Rs.11 crores or a little more or less must be cleared by 31 March. 

    GTPL Hathway was directed to facilitate the payment of the last installment by its JVs to Taj TV and to ensure that the payments are finally made by 31 March.

    Two other respondents in turn are directed to pay the amount of carriage fee of Rs.22 crores to the petitioner on or before 15April.

    The monthly subscription for the months of February and March 2016 for DAS networks [other than DL GTPL CABLE NET, VAJI Communications and GTPL Hathway Pvt. Ltd and March, 2016 for Non-DAS will be cleared by 25 April.

    But the Tribunal said: “Needless to say that the payments in terms of the above order will be on-account and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.”

    The two petitions were filed against disconnection notices dated 13 February and 14 February. The disconnection notices are based on grounds of non-payment of monthly subscription fee and non-execution of the fresh agreements.

    According to counsel for the respondent, its cumulative dues against the petitioner (both in DAS and non-DAS) areas amount to Rs.66 crores as on 12 February.

    But counsel for GTPL Hathway strongly argued that the petitioner was entitled to carriage fee from two respondents and the dues of its carriage fee against these two respondents amounted to around Rs.25 crores. The petitioner further argued that the agreement was based on incremental tariff that was recommended by TRAI but which was later on set aside by the Tribunal and on that score also, the petitioner is entitled to adjustment of Rs.11 crores against the dues claimed by the petitioner.

    Counsel for the respondent submitted that as stipulated in the interconnect agreement between the parties, the dues of subscription fee are payable independent of any adjustments, including any adjustment against carriage fee which was the subject matter of a separate agreement between the petitioner and the other two respondents.  In any event, the agreement relating to carriage fee has expired.

    In course of submissions however, it transpired that the dues of carriage fee claimed by the petitioner may come down to Rs.22 crores and similarly the subscription dues of Taj TV against the petitioner may come down to Rs.63 crores.

    The Tribunal thereupon asked GTPL Hathway to pay to Taj TV a sum of Rs.63 crores in five instalments, of which the last would be on 31 March.