Allowed

Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. v. Joy Tv (Sivaganga)

TDSAT7 Jul 2014BROADCASTING PETITION/784/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal adjudicated a petition by Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of outstanding subscription fees from Joy TV(Sivaganga). The Tribunal determined the correct fee rate based on the agreement and localized the invoice discrepancy. It directed the calculation of the tax component and awarded decree with interest from the previous year to the filing date.

What did the court decide?

Decree for Rs.90,515.82 plus taxes, with interest at 24% p.a. from the previous year to filing date and 9% p.a. thereafter.

Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. vs Joy Tv… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | TDSAT (2014)

¶1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

¶2

Dated 7^th July 2014

¶3

Petition No.784(C) of 2012

¶4

Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. ………Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Joy TV(Sivaganga) …..…Respondent

¶7

BEFORE:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. T.S. Bhatia, Advocate Mr. Upender Thakur, Advocate Mr. Yatin Grover, Advocate For Respondent : None

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

By Aftab Alam, Chairperson – The petitioner, M/s Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. is a Content Aggregator and Distributor of channels. It has filed this petition against the respondent, Joy TV, which is a local cable operator for recovery of Rs.1,27,896.91p as dues of

¶12

monthly subscription fees as on 7 August 2012. The respondent did not

¶13

¶14

appear despite service of notice and hence, the petition has proceeded against it ex parte.

¶15

According to the petitioner, the respondent had entered into an agreement with M/s Star Den Media Services Pvt. Ltd. for supply of channels distributed by it. The agreement was executed on 14 April 2011 but it was effected from 1 January 2011 and came to end on 31 December 2011. The subscription fees payable under the agreement was Rs.30,171.94p (excluding taxes) per month.

¶16

It is further the case of the petitioner that on the basis of agreement executed with Star Den, it took over the sets of channels previously controlled by Star Den from July 2011. Further, the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest also authorized it to collect its outstanding dues from all the MSOs, including the respondent.

¶17

It is also the case of the petitioner that after stepping into the shoes of its predecessor-in-interest, it raised invoices against the respondent for payment of monthly subscription fees as also the dues of the previous distributor. The respondent, however, failed to make payment against the invoices and as a result the outstanding against the respondent accumulated to Rs.1,27,896.91p as on 7 August 2012. And for the recovery of that amount this petition is filed.

¶18

No reply is filed on behalf of the respondent to controvert the statements and allegations made in the petition.

¶19

¶20

The petitioner examined as its witness, one Amiya Ranjan Pati,

¶21

working as Deputy General Manager in the company. The witness identified the subscription agreement between the respondent and Star Den executed on 14 April 2011 for a monthly subscription fee of Rs.30,171.94p excluding taxes and the agreement is marked as Exhibit PW-1/1. The witness also identified the invoices sent by the petitioner to the respondent which are marked as Exhibit PW-1/2 (colly.). Lastly, the witness identified the extracts from the ledger accounts showing the outstanding payable by the respondent which are marked as Exhibit PW1/3(colly.).

¶22

There are altogether three invoices. The first one, dated 12 August 2011, is for the month of July 2011. The invoiced amount is Rs.37,500.82p, out of which Rs.33,998.93p is the subscription charges and the rest are taxes; any previous outstanding is shown as nil. In the next invoice (dated 29 August 2011) for the month of August 2011, the previous invoiced amount (Rs.37,500.82p) is shown as the outstanding to which the subscription charges (Rs.33,998.93p) and taxes are added to arrive at the invoiced amount of Rs.75,001.64p. The next and the last invoice is dated 6 September 2011. It is for the month of September 2011. It shows the outstanding amount as Rs.75,001.64p to which Rs.33,998.83 is added as subscription fee for the month of September

¶23

¶24

2011 to arrive at the invoiced amount of Rs.1,12,502.46p. There is no invoice beyond September 2011.

¶25

Though the respondent’s agreement with Star Den was due to come to end on 31 December 2011, from the record it appears that the petitioner raised invoices against the respondent only till 30 September 2011. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any monthly subscription fee beyond that date.

¶26

Further, it is to be noted that under the agreement the monthly subscription fee(excluding taxes) is Rs.30,171.94p (vide Annexure-C to the agreement between the respondent and Star Den). The same amount is mentioned as the monthly subscription fee (excluding taxes) in paragraph 5 of the petition. It is, therefore, not clear at all how and why in the three invoices raised by the petitioner, the higher amount of Rs.33,998.93p is shown as the monthly subscription fee to which the taxes are added to arrive at the figure of Rs.37,500.82p.

¶27

According to us, the petitioner is entitled to a decree against the respondent for subscription fees for the months of July, August and September 2011 at the rate of Rs.30,171.94p excluding taxes. In other words, the total sum of Rs.90,515.82p excluding taxes. It is ordered accordingly.

¶28

¶29

The petitioner is directed to calculate and submit in the office within two weeks from today, the amount of taxes payable on the aforesaid amount in order to facilitate the preparation of decree.

¶30

The office is directed to make a decree adding the amount of taxes to the sum of Rs.90,515.82p. The aggregate will be receivable by the petitioner along with interest @ 24% per annum (as provided in the agreement) from 1 October 2011 till 31 October 2012, the date of filing the petition before the Tribunal. The decretal amount shall further carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the decretal amount.

¶31

There will be no order as to costs.

¶32

..……………….

¶33

(Aftab Alam) Chairperson

¶34

………………… (Kuldip Singh) Member

¶35

/sks/

Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. v. Joy Tv (Sivaganga)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. v. Joy Tv (Sivaganga)

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

Neo Sports Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. vs Aakash Cable

Abu City Cable vs Abhay Cable Network

Noida Software Technology Park vs Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Wiretel Digital Network Private Limited vs Espn Software India Pvt. Ltd.

Hathway Cable and Datacom Private Limited vs Raj Cable Network

Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs Channel 3 World & Anr.

Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Gomathi Cables

Msm Discovery India Pvt. Ltd. vs Den Narmada Network Pvt. Ltd.

Reliance Telecom Ltd. vs Union of India

Reliance Communication Ltd. vs Union of India

Reliance Communication Ltd. vs Union of India

Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. vs Hubli Communications Network (Karnataka)

Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. vs Sky Link Cable Communications

Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. vs Sahara India Tv Network