The Tribunal held that the broadcaster was barred from disconnecting signals due to prior condonation but restricted service to 600 subscribers.
Direction to restore signals on prior terms within one week; restriction on transmitting signals to more than 600 subscribers.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
6/7/2018
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI
Petition No.45(C) of 2006
Dated 29th March, 2006
Warana Cable Network Through its authorized representative Mr.Govind Mehra Having its office at Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan Ground Floor, Warana Nagar Kolhapur Maharashtra ….Petitioner
Versus
Also at:
M/s Zee Turner Ltd.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SANTOSH HEGDE,
file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202006/Petition_No[1].45_C__of_2006.htm
1/7
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
6/7/2018
CHAIRPERSON MR.VINOD VAISH, MEMBER LT.GEN.(RETD) D.P. SEHGAL, MEMBER
For Petitioner : Mr.Raghvinder Singh, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.Maninder Singh, Advocate with Mr.Yoginder Handoo and Mr.Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Advocates
ORDER
The Petitioner herein claims to be a Multi Service Operator (MSO) in the cable sector, serving areas within Warana Nagar and Kolhapur, Maharashtra. It is stated that under an agreement dated 1st February, 2000 with Respondent No.1, Broadcaster, Petitioner was directly receiving signals of Zee on a subscriber base of 600 and on that basis he has been paying subscription as per the terms of the agreement between the parties. It contends that most of its subscribers are within Warana Nagar but a few of them are in Kolhapur Town and right from the beginning, Petitioner has been supplying signals to its subscribers both in Warana Nagar and Kolhapur and no objection was ever raised by the first Respondent for this arrangement of the Petitioner. It is further contended that in October, 2005, Respondent No.1, for the first time after three years, sought information regarding subscriber base and the areas in which the petitioner was providing cable service. It is stated that in the said letter three days notice is given to the Petitioner for providing the required information failing which the Petitioner’s signals were threatened to be disconnected. A copy of the said letter dated 17.10.2005 received by the Petitioner is annexed to the Petition as Annexure P-I. The Petitioner contends that this notice was given to coerce the Petitioner to subscribe to a more expensive bouquet of channels and is not a bonafide notice.
file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202006/Petition_No[1].45_C__of_2006.htm
2/7
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
6/7/2018
file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202006/Petition_No[1].45_C__of_2006.htm
3/7
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
6/7/2018
first Respondent’s signals not only in Warana Nagar but also in some places in the city of Kolhapur. At any rate, the Petitioner submits that once the Respondent gave up the allegation made in the first notice dated 17.10.2005 and did not act upon the same and thereafter received a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs in advance towards the subscription, it could not have reopened the same issue once again and that too after receiving additional sum from the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner contends that signals which were disconnected during the pendency of this Petition should be restored and Respondent be directed to pay damages for the loss of business suffered by the Petitioner on account of disconnection. We must note herein that the prayers have been modified because of the changed position in as much as the signals were disconnected during the pendency of the Petition.
file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202006/Petition_No[1].45_C__of_2006.htm
4/7
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
6/7/2018
in Warana Nagar and also in some places in Kolhapur and the Respondent had no objection for the same, hence, was receiving subscriptions without any demure. It is also noticed from the records that for the first time in the year 2005, the Respondent issued a notice on 17.10.2005 making allegations that it has come to its notice that the Petitioner has been transmitting signals in certain areas mentioned in the said notice unauthorisedly. The said notice also mentioned that the Petitioner has a subscriber base of 600 but it was transmitting signals to much larger number than 600. Therefore, under-declaration of the subscriber base also amounts to breach of agreement which disentitles the Petitioner from receiving signals of the first Respondent and the Agreement is liable to be terminated for material breach of the terms of the agreement. However, it is seen that in spite of said notice of termination, no further action was taken by the first Respondent to terminate the signals. In fact, on the contrary, as alleged by the Petitioner, the first Respondent sent a letter dated 15th December, 2005 calling upon the Petitioner to pay an enhanced subscription of 4% as permitted by the TRAI notification. To be precise, this was about two months after the notice of termination dated 17.10.2005. That apart, on 9th January, 2006, the second Respondent has received a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the Petitioner towards the balance subscription payable by the Petitioner as well as an advance payable uptill the month of July, 2006.
file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202006/Petition_No[1].45_C__of_2006.htm
5/7
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
6/7/2018
Warana Nagar but at a few places in Kolhapur and it was within the knowledge of the first Respondent to which first Respondent did not object. Of course, it is specifically contended by the Petitioner that all the agreements were signed blank and most of the contents were filled in by the first Respondent without the concurrence of the Petitioner. We would not go into this disputed question since it is not necessary for the disposal of this Petition. Suffice it to say that the conduct of the Respondent in making a demand for increased subscription after the first notice and the receipt of the sum of Rs.5 lakhs thereafter, are sufficient indications of the fact that the first Respondent has condoned the act of unauthorized transmission. Therefore, in our opinion, on the very same cause of action it is not open to the first Respondent to issue another notice of disconnection on the ground of unauthorized transmission unless, of course, the first Respondent has material to establish that after the first notice a fresh cause of action has arisen; but that is not the case of the first Respondent. Therefore, in our opinion, the Petitioner is justified in complaining that his signals have been disconnected not on a genuine ground of illegal transmission but for collateral purpose.
file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202006/Petition_No[1].45_C__of_2006.htm
6/7
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
6/7/2018
….………………….J (N.Santosh Hegde) Chairperson
..……………... (Vinod Vaish) Member
….……………. (D.P. Sehgal) Member
file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202006/Petition_No[1].45_C__of_2006.htm
7/7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent was estopped from disconnecting signals after prior condonation of unauthorized transmissions.
Whether the petitioner's transmission rights are limited to the agreed subscriber base of 600.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to restore prior terms of signal transmission after the dispute.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Warana Cable Network
M/s Zee-Turner Ltd.
M/s Bhim Riddhi Infotainment
N Santosh Hegde
Vinod Vaish
D P Sehgal
As recorded by the court registry
A petition before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in a broadcasting or cable-distribution dispute.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
