ITV

Tag: Tribunal

  • TDSAT asks LCOs on signal source post complaints against Tejpur Cable

    TDSAT asks LCOs on signal source post complaints against Tejpur Cable

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has asked Mahabhairab Cable Network and other cable networks to file an affidavit by 27 January disclosing the source of their signals after 31 December, 2015.

     

    Listing the matter for 29 January, TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava took note of the statement by the LCO counsel Vivek Sarin that his clients were not receiving the signals from Tejpur Cable Networks and others despite the statement by the latter that the signals were being transmitted.

     

    On the contrary, Sarin said none of the petitioners were receiving any signals from Tejpur Cable post 31 December, 2015 as the latter had removed the nodes through which the signals were being supplied to the LCOs. 

     

    Earlier, the Tribunal was told that all the LCOs had paid their dues to Tejpur Cable for the month of November 2015 (even though payments were made beyond the date as directed by the Tribunal).

     

    As far as the dues of subscription fee for December 2015 were concerned, Sarin said only petitioner no.23 was in default. Sarin stated that petitioner nos. 10, 24 and 25 have “merged” and continued their relationship with Tejpur Cable. He further stated that except petitioner no. 23, all other petitioners had paid the subscription fees for December 2015 to Tejpur Cable by 12 January, 2016. 

     

    Tejpur Cable counsel Sharath Sampath said four among the petitioners – nos.2, 10, 23 and 25 – were in default stated in payment of subscription fees for December 2015. 

     

    But notwithstanding this, Sampath said Tejpur Cable was continuing the supply of its signals to all the petitioners including the four defaulters.

  • TDSAT asks LCOs on signal source post complaints against Tejpur Cable

    TDSAT asks LCOs on signal source post complaints against Tejpur Cable

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has asked Mahabhairab Cable Network and other cable networks to file an affidavit by 27 January disclosing the source of their signals after 31 December, 2015.

     

    Listing the matter for 29 January, TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava took note of the statement by the LCO counsel Vivek Sarin that his clients were not receiving the signals from Tejpur Cable Networks and others despite the statement by the latter that the signals were being transmitted.

     

    On the contrary, Sarin said none of the petitioners were receiving any signals from Tejpur Cable post 31 December, 2015 as the latter had removed the nodes through which the signals were being supplied to the LCOs. 

     

    Earlier, the Tribunal was told that all the LCOs had paid their dues to Tejpur Cable for the month of November 2015 (even though payments were made beyond the date as directed by the Tribunal).

     

    As far as the dues of subscription fee for December 2015 were concerned, Sarin said only petitioner no.23 was in default. Sarin stated that petitioner nos. 10, 24 and 25 have “merged” and continued their relationship with Tejpur Cable. He further stated that except petitioner no. 23, all other petitioners had paid the subscription fees for December 2015 to Tejpur Cable by 12 January, 2016. 

     

    Tejpur Cable counsel Sharath Sampath said four among the petitioners – nos.2, 10, 23 and 25 – were in default stated in payment of subscription fees for December 2015. 

     

    But notwithstanding this, Sampath said Tejpur Cable was continuing the supply of its signals to all the petitioners including the four defaulters.

  • TDSAT rejects 3 LCOs’ application for STB deposit refund from Indusind

    TDSAT rejects 3 LCOs’ application for STB deposit refund from Indusind

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has rejected applications by three local cable operators (LCOs) seeking refund from IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd of Rs 1100 per Set Top Box (STB). Of the Rs 1100, Rs 500 for each STB is allegedly the amount towards security deposit paid by respondents and another sum of Rs 600 per STB allegedly charged from the respondents from its customers as activation fee.

     

    While noting that evidence in this regard would be examined in the three main cases by IndusInd against R S Cable, OM Cable, and Vipin Sehrawat and others, the clause of the agreement relating to security deposit shows it was at the discretion of Indusind. 

     

    Though the security deposit is refundable, as regards installation and activation charges, there is no clause for the refund of same. The only receipt produced by the applicants mentions a payment of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs. 

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “There is nothing to indicate that this payment was for security deposit. On the other hand, the statement annexed by the petitioner (Indusind) in its reply to the applications indicates this to be otherwise.”

     

    Rejecting the LCOs’ applications, the Tribunal said, “In view of the contrary stands taken by the parties on facts, we feel that evidences will be required in this regard. At this stage, in the absence of sufficient material to support the claim of the applicants/respondents, we do not find that a sufficient case is made for direction to refund any amount. We, however, leave this question open for determination at the time of the trial.”

     

    Indusind is a multi system operator (MSO) with a pan India presence, the respondents are LCOs. The petitioner came to the Tribunal challenging the migration of applicants/respondents to the network of another MSO. 

     

    In its interim appeal, it had asked for a direction to the LCOs to jointly return the STBs provided by it.

     

    The Tribunal, by an order dated 5 November 2015, directed the LCOs to return all the STBs to Indusind. However, the question whether Indusind might be liable to make any payment for the returned STBs to the LCOs or to deposit an equal amount before the Tribunal, was left expressly open. The return of the STBs was to be overseen by an Advocate Commissioner that was appointed for the purpose. The advocate commissioner said the LCOs had returned 2290 STBs.

     

    It was the case of the LCOs that they had paid a sum of Rs 1100 per STB and for the STBs that have been returned by them, these charges must be refunded by Indusind. 

     

    The reply to the application filed by Indusind says it only received installation charges of Rs 500 per STB from the LCOs on which it has even paid the service tax and the same is not refundable. In support of its pleadings, the MSO has annexed a statement titled “STB installation charge account” with its reply. 

     

    The LCOs have not provided any material to substantiate their claim except for a receipt of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs in case of Bunny Cable (respondent no. 1 in one of the three petitions). Indusind said the receipt of Rs 1,00,000 in regard of Bunny Cable is also towards installation charges and already accounted for in the statement annexed by it.

     

    The LCOs argued that the agreement provides for a security deposit of Rs 500 per STB and the MSO would not have supplied the STBs without taking this. 

     

    According to clause 3.4 of the agreement between the MSO and the LCOs in all these petitions, the LCO was to collect rent, installment and security deposit in respect of the hardware/STBs from the subscribers and hand over the same to the petitioner. 

     

    In terms of the “Schedule A II. Standard Terms and Conditions,” the LCOs were required to deposit at the discretion of the MSO, an interest free and refundable security deposit of Rs 500 per STB.

  • TDSAT rejects 3 LCOs’ application for STB deposit refund from Indusind

    TDSAT rejects 3 LCOs’ application for STB deposit refund from Indusind

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has rejected applications by three local cable operators (LCOs) seeking refund from IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd of Rs 1100 per Set Top Box (STB). Of the Rs 1100, Rs 500 for each STB is allegedly the amount towards security deposit paid by respondents and another sum of Rs 600 per STB allegedly charged from the respondents from its customers as activation fee.

     

    While noting that evidence in this regard would be examined in the three main cases by IndusInd against R S Cable, OM Cable, and Vipin Sehrawat and others, the clause of the agreement relating to security deposit shows it was at the discretion of Indusind. 

     

    Though the security deposit is refundable, as regards installation and activation charges, there is no clause for the refund of same. The only receipt produced by the applicants mentions a payment of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs. 

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “There is nothing to indicate that this payment was for security deposit. On the other hand, the statement annexed by the petitioner (Indusind) in its reply to the applications indicates this to be otherwise.”

     

    Rejecting the LCOs’ applications, the Tribunal said, “In view of the contrary stands taken by the parties on facts, we feel that evidences will be required in this regard. At this stage, in the absence of sufficient material to support the claim of the applicants/respondents, we do not find that a sufficient case is made for direction to refund any amount. We, however, leave this question open for determination at the time of the trial.”

     

    Indusind is a multi system operator (MSO) with a pan India presence, the respondents are LCOs. The petitioner came to the Tribunal challenging the migration of applicants/respondents to the network of another MSO. 

     

    In its interim appeal, it had asked for a direction to the LCOs to jointly return the STBs provided by it.

     

    The Tribunal, by an order dated 5 November 2015, directed the LCOs to return all the STBs to Indusind. However, the question whether Indusind might be liable to make any payment for the returned STBs to the LCOs or to deposit an equal amount before the Tribunal, was left expressly open. The return of the STBs was to be overseen by an Advocate Commissioner that was appointed for the purpose. The advocate commissioner said the LCOs had returned 2290 STBs.

     

    It was the case of the LCOs that they had paid a sum of Rs 1100 per STB and for the STBs that have been returned by them, these charges must be refunded by Indusind. 

     

    The reply to the application filed by Indusind says it only received installation charges of Rs 500 per STB from the LCOs on which it has even paid the service tax and the same is not refundable. In support of its pleadings, the MSO has annexed a statement titled “STB installation charge account” with its reply. 

     

    The LCOs have not provided any material to substantiate their claim except for a receipt of Rs 1,00,000 for 200 STBs in case of Bunny Cable (respondent no. 1 in one of the three petitions). Indusind said the receipt of Rs 1,00,000 in regard of Bunny Cable is also towards installation charges and already accounted for in the statement annexed by it.

     

    The LCOs argued that the agreement provides for a security deposit of Rs 500 per STB and the MSO would not have supplied the STBs without taking this. 

     

    According to clause 3.4 of the agreement between the MSO and the LCOs in all these petitions, the LCO was to collect rent, installment and security deposit in respect of the hardware/STBs from the subscribers and hand over the same to the petitioner. 

     

    In terms of the “Schedule A II. Standard Terms and Conditions,” the LCOs were required to deposit at the discretion of the MSO, an interest free and refundable security deposit of Rs 500 per STB.

  • News Broadcasters case on adcap to be heard by TDSAT on 31 October

    News Broadcasters case on adcap to be heard by TDSAT on 31 October

    NEW DELHI: The petition by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) challenging the constitutional validity of the regulations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) enforcing the ad cap is to come up for hearing on 31 October.

     

    The fresh date was fixed on a mention by counsel A J Bhambani for the NBA to the effect that the cases relating to general entertainment channels could not be clubbed with news broadcasters who had challenged the authority of TRAI to take decisions in the matter.

     

    Earlier on 30 August, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) had listed the matter for 11 November.

     

    However, when some general entertainment channels including music channels approached TDSAT in various petitions, the Tribunal decided to club all the cases together and hear them on 21 October after counsel for TRAI told TDSAT during a hearing earlier this month that an anomalous situation had been created with some channels having accepted the adcap with effect from 1 October. It was therefore requested that the matter be resolved once and for all.

     

    It remains to be seen whether general entertainment channels will seek a change in date in view of the new date for the NBA case. However, counsel for some of the GECs told indiantelevision.com that TDSAT was expected to hear all matters together on 31 October.

     

    Meanwhile, TRAI had been forbidden on 30 August from taking any ‘coercive action’ against news channels who are not abiding by the agreement relating to advertisement time on news channels.

     

    The Tribunal also said that while the news channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour on a weekly basis, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator as being done at present and will only submit these to TDSAT at the hearing of the case.

     

    Bhambani had said on 30 August that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the Regulations. He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision. He had added that there were many members who were common to both the IBF and the NBA, and therefore the IBF had submitted a ‘proposal’ on 29 May this year, which the TRAI accepted. But this could not be construed as a regulation.

     

    Even otherwise, he argued that TRAI was only empowered by its own Act to make ‘recommendations’ on issues like advertisements and not bring about or enforce regulations and resort to prosecution.

     

    When the law was invoked by the Authority in May 2012, it was disputed by television broadcasters which had also challenged the jurisdiction of TRAI in this regard before the Tribunal.

  • Ad cap: Petitions to be heard on 21 Oct by TDSAT

    Ad cap: Petitions to be heard on 21 Oct by TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: So it looks like the Sony Entertainment Television network’s position on the ad cap situation seems right – at least for now. It was announced today that all matters challenging the issues relating to the ad cap sought to be implemented by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) will be heard by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) on 21 October.

    After hearing counsel Abhishek Malhotra and other counsel, TRAI assured TDSAT that it will not take any coercive action against any more television channels including New Delhi-based E24 run by E 24 Glamour and Chennai-based Polimer Media’s channel, among others.

    The counsel for TRAI told TDSAT that an anomalous situation had been created with some channels having accepted the ad cap with effect from today, 1 October. It was therefore requested that the matter be resolved once and for all.

    Last week, TRAI had given a similar order in the case of Mastiii (owned by TV Vision, Mumbai), B4U, 9X Media, M Tunes HD and Music Xpress.

    Earlier, TDSAT had accepted a similar petition by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) which challenged the constitutional validity of the regulations of TRAI enforcing the ad cap. That petition had been listed for hearing on 11 November but will be heard along with the others.

    The Tribunal had earlier said that while the channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator. Unlike the current practice, the records will only be submitted to TDSAT at the time of the hearing of the case.

    At that time, Counsel A J Bhambani for the NBA had said that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the regulations.
    He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision.

  • TRAI directed not to implement ad cap for music channels

    TRAI directed not to implement ad cap for music channels

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was today directed not to take any coercive action against four music television channels with regards to ad cap.

    Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) member Kuldip Singh after hearing counsel Kunal Tandon directed the matter to come up for further hearing on 21 October.

    The petitions were filed on behalf of Mastiii (owned by TV Vision, Mumbai), B4U, 9X Media, M Tunes HD and Music Xpress.

    Earlier, TDSAT had accepted a similar petition by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) which challenged the constitutional validity of the regulations of TRAI enforcing the ad cap. That petition has been listed for hearing on 11 November.

    The Tribunal said while the channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour on a weekly basis, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator. Unlike the current practice, the records will only be submitted to TDSAT at the time of the hearing of the case.

    At that time, Counsel A J Bhambani for the NBA had said that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the regulations.

    He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision.