Partly allowed

Neo Sports Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. v. Win Cable Network Sharanpur

TDSAT3 May 2011BROADCASTING PETITION/241/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed a petition for recovery of outstanding subscription fees and interest under an Interconnect Agreement. The tribunal awarded the principal amount but reduced the interest rate from the claimed 24% to 9%.

What did the court decide?

Decree for recovery of Rs. 1,63,602/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of breach until realization; no order as to costs.

Neo Sports Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. vs Win Cable… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | TDSAT (2011)

¶1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

¶2

NEW DELHI

¶3

Dated- 03^rd May, 2011

¶4

Petition No.241 (C) of 2010

¶5

Neo Sports Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Win Cable Cable Network Sharanpur …Respondent

¶8

BEFORE:

¶9

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.B. SINHA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. G.D. GAIHA, MEMBER HON’BLE MR. P.K. RASTOGI, MEMBER

¶10

For Petitioner

¶11

: Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : None

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

This petition was filed by the petitioner for recovery of the arrears of subscription fees due from the respondent herein.

¶15

The petitioner is a broadcaster of television channels in terms of the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. It is engaged in the business of producing, broadcasting and distributing satellite based television channels and has this exclusive right to distribute the same within the territory of India. The petitioner has

¶16

two 24x7 pay television sports infotainment channels commonly known as “Neo Cricket” and “Neo Sports”.

¶17

The respondent is a cable operator and has been operating its cable business within the territory of the town of Sharanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent being desirous of distributing the two said channels of the petitioner approached it for distribution thereof in the said area.

¶18

The petitioner states that on a representation made by the respondent to it, an Interconnect Agreement was entered with on or about 28. 09.2007 which was valid for a period of 29.09.2007 to 28.09.2008, whereby and whereunder the respondent was authorized to retransmit the signals of the bouquet of channels comprising of “Neo Cricket” and “Neo Sports” by the Petitioner.

¶19

An agreement had been entered into on the basis of the said representation of the respondent on a subscriber base of 756. The said subscriber base was subject to verification by the petitioner. Under the said agreement the respondent was under an obligation to pay an amount of Rs. 31641/- per month calculated @ Rs. 37.25 per subscriber per month towards subscription charges i.e. upto 28.09.2009 inclusive of all taxes.

¶20

According to the petitioner the total amount which has become payable by the respondent to the petitioner was Rs. 1,63,602/- upon adjustment of payments received from it.

¶21

The petitioner, as per the terms of interconnection agreement, was also entitled to the amount of Rs. 96,701/- upto 25.05.2010 towards interest calculated at the rate of 24% p. a. on the said outstanding amount.

¶22

The petitioner in this petition has interalia, prayed for the following reliefs:

¶23

(a) Pass a decree/order in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent for recovery of Rs1,63,602/- alongwith interest of Rs. 96,701/- upto 25.05.2010 at the rate of 24% totaling to Rs. 2,60,303/and from 25.05.2010 until the date of filing the present petition;and/or

¶24

(b) Pass a decree/order in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent for recovery of interest at the rate of 24% per annum pendente lite and until repayment of the said amount in the favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent and

¶25

¶26

(d) Award the cost of this Petition in favour of the Petitioner and/or

¶27

(e) Pass such other/further Orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶28

The respondent despite service of notice did not appear.

¶29

The petitioner has filed the following documents:-

¶30

(i) Copy of the Interconnect Agreement dated 28.09.2007 valid for one year; (ii) Copy of the Statement of Account for the period 01.10.2007 and 25.05.2010;

¶31

(iii) Copies of the Notices dated 04.03. 2009 and 05.10.2009;

¶32

(iv) Copy of the Legal notice dated 20.03.2010;

¶33

(v) Copy of the Ledger Account;

¶34

(vi) Copy of some invoices;

¶35

(vii) Copy of the Newspaper “Rashtriya Sahara” to show publication of notice dated 19.03.2011.

¶36

Shri Ranjan Kumar Sharma, Executive- Legal of the petitioner company has affirmed an affidavit in support of the petitioner’s claim.

¶37

The said deponent in his affidavit stated as under:-

¶38

“I state that the aforesaid agreement was signed and executed between the parties and is a duly signed and a concluded agreement. The signals in terms of agreements were supplied continuously to the respondent by the Petitioner.

¶39

I state that despite agreeing to all the terms and conditions, the Respondent has continued to default in payment of the agreed subscription amount and has continued to default since inception despite receiving the services continuously and all the invoices from time to time as per the terms of the Agreement. The Respondent failed to pay any heed to the invoices. The Respondent has made irregular payments of Rs. 35,000/- on 31.05.2008 and Rs. 25,000/- on 31.05.2008 which have been accounted for. Copy of invoice dated 01.10.200701.04.2008 are marked as Exhibit PW 1/ 2-PW 1/9.”

¶40

It was also stated:-

¶41

”I state that the Petitioner has sent innumerable reminders and visited the office of the Respondent, asking them to clear the outstanding dues but to no avail. It is respectfully submitted that after entering into the said agreement, the respondent started committing defaults in making the monthly payments as per the terms of the Interconnect Agreement. The Petitioner submits that the total amount which was payable by the respondent to the petitioner of Rs. 1,63,602/-

¶42

alongwith interest of Rs. 96,701/- upto 25.05.2010 at the rate of 24% per annum and alongwith interest pendente lite until the date of filing the present petition and pendente lite until the payment of same. A copy of the statement of account detailing the outstanding amount payable by the respondent along with interest as on 25.05.2010 is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit PW 1/10.”

¶43

Having perused the record of the matter including the affidavit of the deponent aforementioned and the documents accompanying the petition and/or the affidavit affirmed in support thereof, we are satisfied that the respondent has made itself liable to pay a sum of Rs1,63,602/- As prayed for, let a decree for the said amount is passed. The rate of interest, however, is allowed @ 9% past, pendente lite and future.

¶44

This petition is allowed in part and to the extent mentioned hereto before. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶45

……………… (S.B. Sinha) Chairperson

¶46

..…………… (G.D. Gaiha) Member

¶47

..…………….. (P.K. Rastogi) Member

¶48

/AS/

Neo Sports Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. v. Win Cable Network Sharanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neo Sports Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. v. Win Cable Network Sharanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Clear Media (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Prasar Bharati & Anr.

Ccn Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Msm Discovery India Pvt. Ltd.

Noida Software Technology Park Limited vs Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

North Delhi Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Master Cable Network

Vigneswara Cable Network vs Star Den Media Service Pvt. Ltd.

TV18 Broadcast Limited vs Star Den Media Service Pvt. Ltd.

Hathway Bhaskar Multinet Pvt. Ltd.and Anr. vs Sahara Sanchar Limited

Sangani Cable Network vs Star Den Media Service Pvt. Ltd.