ITV

Tag: Tribunal

  • TDSAT asks Sai Prasad Media to clear dues of MSO with interest

    TDSAT asks Sai Prasad Media to clear dues of MSO with interest

    NEW DELHI: Sai Prasad Media Private Ltd which broadcasts News Express has been directed by the TelecomDisputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay a sum of Rs 35,88,009 along with interest @8 percent till the date of final payment of the amount to multi-system operator Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd.

    The case of the petitioner is that it entered into a channel placement agreement for placement of News Express on 27 September 2013 for the period 15 July 2013 to 14 July 2013. Sai Prasad Media was required to pay an amount of Rs 1,07,20,000 excluding taxes in four instalments on receipt of invoices. Fastway claimed it fulfilled all obligations on its part under the agreement.

    However, Sai Prasad Media failed to make payments to the petitioner for  placement/carriage charges. It has also been stated that invoices towards payment of placement charges/carriage fee in accordance with the agreement were raised but only part payments were made in violation of terms of the agreement. It has been further submitted that partial payment/non-payment of invoiced amounts resulted in an outstanding dues of Rs 35,88,008. 

    Reminders to the broadcaster went unheeded, and it also failed to appear before the Tribunal to defend its case.  

    Chairperson Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava In the directive on 25 May 2016 also directed for examination of the witness of the petitioner by an advocate commissioner, before examining all the documents and coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had fulfilled all its obligations.

  • TDSAT asks Sai Prasad Media to clear dues of MSO with interest

    TDSAT asks Sai Prasad Media to clear dues of MSO with interest

    NEW DELHI: Sai Prasad Media Private Ltd which broadcasts News Express has been directed by the TelecomDisputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay a sum of Rs 35,88,009 along with interest @8 percent till the date of final payment of the amount to multi-system operator Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd.

    The case of the petitioner is that it entered into a channel placement agreement for placement of News Express on 27 September 2013 for the period 15 July 2013 to 14 July 2013. Sai Prasad Media was required to pay an amount of Rs 1,07,20,000 excluding taxes in four instalments on receipt of invoices. Fastway claimed it fulfilled all obligations on its part under the agreement.

    However, Sai Prasad Media failed to make payments to the petitioner for  placement/carriage charges. It has also been stated that invoices towards payment of placement charges/carriage fee in accordance with the agreement were raised but only part payments were made in violation of terms of the agreement. It has been further submitted that partial payment/non-payment of invoiced amounts resulted in an outstanding dues of Rs 35,88,008. 

    Reminders to the broadcaster went unheeded, and it also failed to appear before the Tribunal to defend its case.  

    Chairperson Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava In the directive on 25 May 2016 also directed for examination of the witness of the petitioner by an advocate commissioner, before examining all the documents and coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had fulfilled all its obligations.

  • TDSAT dismisses Discovery claim against All Digital Networks

    TDSAT dismisses Discovery claim against All Digital Networks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • TDSAT dismisses Discovery claim against All Digital Networks

    TDSAT dismisses Discovery claim against All Digital Networks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    New Delhi, 25 March: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate has directed attachment of the bank accounts of Digicable Network (India) Ltd, accepting the plea in this regard by Media Pro Enterprise (I) Pvt. Ltd in the prayer clause in the execution application.

    However, the Tribunal said the order of attachment will become operative from 1 April, subject to the condition that Digicable Network “shall not make any withdrawal from the account, save and except for payment of salary to its staff”.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said a copy of the order should be sent to the concerned banks without delay.

    At the outset, the Tribunal noted that the execution proceedings are at a stage where the only course left is to make a direction for attachment of the bank accounts, head-ends and other properties of Digicable Networks. 

    However, the Tribunal said that “we wish to give one more opportunity to the respondent to try to resolve the matter amicably” before making such a direction.  

    The matter has been listed for 6 April when the CEO of Digicable should remain personally present before the Tribunal to make proposal, if any, for settlement with the respondent, the Tribunal said.

     

     
  • TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    New Delhi, 25 March: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate has directed attachment of the bank accounts of Digicable Network (India) Ltd, accepting the plea in this regard by Media Pro Enterprise (I) Pvt. Ltd in the prayer clause in the execution application.

    However, the Tribunal said the order of attachment will become operative from 1 April, subject to the condition that Digicable Network “shall not make any withdrawal from the account, save and except for payment of salary to its staff”.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said a copy of the order should be sent to the concerned banks without delay.

    At the outset, the Tribunal noted that the execution proceedings are at a stage where the only course left is to make a direction for attachment of the bank accounts, head-ends and other properties of Digicable Networks. 

    However, the Tribunal said that “we wish to give one more opportunity to the respondent to try to resolve the matter amicably” before making such a direction.  

    The matter has been listed for 6 April when the CEO of Digicable should remain personally present before the Tribunal to make proposal, if any, for settlement with the respondent, the Tribunal said.

     

     
  • 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.

  • 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.