Dismissed

Bridge View Broadband Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Star Den Media Service Pvt. Ltd.

TDSAT25 Jul 2011BROADCASTING PETITION/259/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP Tribunal rejected petitioner's piracy allegations due to insufficient proof in CDs and dismissed interim injunction prayers, observing that unauthorised retransmission without broadcaster agreements violates the law of the land.

What did the court decide?

Prayers disposed of with observation that respondent shall not retransmit signals without entering into agreements with broadcasters.

Bridge View Broadband Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Star Den Media Service Pvt. Ltd. — TDSAT (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

¶2

NEW DELHI

¶3

Dated 25^th JULY, 2011

¶4

Petition No. 258(C) of 2011

¶5

Solan Sat TV : Petitioner Vs. Star Den Media Services Pvt. & Anr : Respondents

¶6

Petition No. 259(C) of 2011

¶7

Bridge View Broadband Network Pvt. Ltd. : Petitioner Vs. Star Den Media Services Pvt. & Ors. : Respondents

¶8

Petition No. 260(C) of 2011

¶9

Solan Communication : Petitioner Vs. MSM Discovery India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors : Respondents

¶10

BEFORE :

¶11

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

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Advocate Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate For Respondent (Star Den) : Mr. Gopal Jain, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Advocate Mr. Arjun Nataranajan, Advocate Ms. Garima Sharma, Advocate For Respondent (MSM Disc.) : Mr. A.C. Mishra, Advocate

¶13

For Respondent (Zee Turner) : Mr. Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent (Fastway : Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate Transmission) Mr. Sharath Sampath, Advocate Mr. Tushar Singh, Advocate

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

G. D. GAIHA

¶16

The petitioner in these petitions has inter alia prayed for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent no.2 in each of these petitions.

¶17

Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd. from transmitting the signals of the broadcasters, who have been arrayed as respondent no.2 in each of them matters.

¶18

Indisputably respondent no.2 has not entered into any agreement with the broadcasters for the purpose of retransmission of the signals of their channels.

¶19

The petitioner, however, contends that despite the fact that respondent no.2 in law is not entitled to carry on any business as a Multi Service Operator, it has been supplying signals of the channels of the broadcasters.

¶20

The respondent no.2, however, contends that it had not been retransmitting signals of the broadcasters, and thus, has not resorted to any

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

act of piracy. The petitioner has produced a CD before us to show that indeed the said respondent had been committing the acts of piracy.

¶23

The respective submissions of the learned counsel have been noticed by us in our order dated 30.5.2011. The matter was heard on 3.6.2011.

¶24

Thereafter, an additional CD has also been produced. The said CD has been seen. We find that in one of the CDs, there is only a running view of one of the market places which does not even indicate the City in which the market is located. In another CD also, we find a view of market place again, which indicates the place ‘Shimla’ in one of the sign boards. However, we do not find any indication as to how these CD’s are to prove the showing the signals of the Respondent No.2, i.e. Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd, as also the signals of the Star Den Media Services also through Respondent No.2 in the network of the petitioner to the residents of Shimla. These CDs, therefore, do not go to prove anything in regard to piracy of the signals by Respondent No.2 in the area of the petitioner.

¶25

We, therefore, are not in a position to confirm the contention of the petitioner that the Respondent No.2 is unauthorisedly transmitting signals in the area of the petitioner without signing legitimate agreements various broadcasters who are Respondent No.1 in these petitions. The allegation of the petitioner against the Respondent No.2 that it has indulged in an act of piracy, therefore is not supported by these CDs. The production of these CDs before us by filing an additional affidavit is a sheer waste of time and we, therefore, deprecate such tendency of filing CDs without proving any substantial facts or supplementing the contentions of the petitioner.

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

Keeping in view the observations made in the accompanying order as also in view of the fact that the respondents categorically deny and dispute commission of any act of piracy, it is not possible to arrive at a firm conclusion that the petitioner has committed acts of piracy.

¶28

It is, however, not denied or disputed that the respondent no.2 cannot in law without entering into any agreement with the broadcasters cannot retransmit signals of their channels.

¶29

In view of the fact that no such agreement has been entered into, the question of the respondent’s no.2 being entitled to do so does not arise.

¶30

In that view of the matter, interest of justice would be sub-served if the interim prayers made by the petitioner is disposed of with an observation that the respondent no.2 would not retransmit the signals of the channels of the broadcasters without entering into agreements with them.

¶31

……………….,J (S.B. Sinha) Chairperson

¶32

………………… (G.D. Gaiha) Member

¶33

…………………. (P.K. Rastogi) Member

¶34

HKC/’ns’

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Bridge View Broadband Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Star Den Media Service Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bridge View Broadband Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Star Den Media Service Pvt. Ltd.

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

Zee Turner Ltd. vs Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd.

Shivam Cable Networks & Anr. vs Espn Software India Pvt. Ltd.

Eswara Communication vs Maa Television Network Ltd.

Intermedia Cable Communication Pvt. Ltd. vs Complete News &Entertainment Broadcast P.Ltd

Hathway Bhaskar Multinet Pvt. Ltd. vs Jaipur Cable T. v. Network

Harika Cable Vision vs Maa Television

Wire and Wireless (India) Ltd. vs International Cable Tv.Network

M/S Guwahati Communications vs R.B. Network

Eswara Communication vs Maa Television Network Ltd.

Nirman & Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd.

India Cable Net Company Ltd. vs Friednds Cable Network

Hathway Bhaskar Multinet Pvt. Ltd. vs Jaipur Cable T. v. Network

Harika Cable Vision vs Maa Television

Wire and Wireless (India) Ltd. vs International Cable Tv.Network