Partly allowed

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajmoti Network

TDSAT29 Jan 2015BROADCASTING PETITION/118/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal adjudicated a contract dispute between a broadcaster and an MSO regarding unpaid monthly subscription fees. The court held that dues are recoverable only for the agreement period and directed the petitioner to file a revised account for that duration.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed for dues up to 31.12.2013; petitioner directed to file revised account within two weeks; decree to include 9% annual interest.

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. vs Rajmoti Network — Contract and Commercial Disputes | TDSAT (2015)

¶1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

¶2

Dated 29^th January, 2015

¶3

Petition No.118(C) of 2014

¶4

MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd.

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajmoti Network .....Respondent

¶8

BEFORE:

¶9

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

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Azmat H. Amanullah, Advocate

For Respondent

: None.

ORDER

By Aftab Alam, Chairperson – MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd., the

¶15

petitioner, is a broadcaster and its supplies its TV channels, for consideration, to MSOs for further distribution and re-transmission. It has filed this petition against, Rajmoti Network, a sole proprietorship concern, operating as a multi-system operator, from whom the petitioner seeks recovery of Rs.5,29,063/- as dues of monthly subscription fees.

¶16

¶17

The respondent did not appear despite service of repeated notices and hence, the petition was proceeded ex parte.

¶18

According to the petitioner, it had entered into a subscription agreement with the respondent on 4 June, 2013 for retransmission of its TV channels in some parts of Diu on payment of an agreed lump sum amount of Rs.60,000/-(exclusive of taxes) as monthly subscription charges. The subscription agreement was for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2013.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was irregular in payment of its monthly subscription fee and defaulted in the monthly payments and as a result arrears of subscription fees amounting to Rs.5,29,063/- became due from it. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not pay its dues despite repeated reminders and hence, left with no other option, the petitioner issued a notice dated 01.03.2013 under clause 4.1 of the Interconnect Regulations. However, the respondent chose not to respond to the said notice as well. The petitioner thereafter published public notices dated 02.03.2013 under clause 4.3 of the Regulations in the two leading local newspapers; viz (i)

¶20

The Pioneer(English) and (ii) Swatantra Chetna(Regional). However, according to the petitioner, neither any payment nor any response was

¶21

¶22

received from the respondent and therefore, the petitioner deactivated its signals to the respondent on 31.01.2014. The petitioner thereafter sent a legal notice dated 18.02.2014 to the respondent demanding its outstanding dues but to no avail. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file this petition before the Tribunal.

¶23

The petitioner in support of its case, examined one Farid F Koradia, who is serving as Area Sales Manager with the petitioner company. In his deposition, he fully supported the petitioner’s claim against the respondent. He identified and proved the subscription agreement executed by the respondent, which is marked as Exhibit P-1. He further identified and proved copies of the monthly invoices raised by the petitioner against the respondent, which are marked as Exhibit P-2. He also identified and proved the notice dated 01.12.2013 issued under clause 4.1 of the Interconnect Regulations along with its postal receipt, which is marked as Exhibit P-3. He also identified and proved the public notices dated 13.12.2013 issued under clause 4.3 of the Interconnect Regulations, which are marked as Exhibit P-4. Further, he identified and proved the statement of account, which is marked as Exhibit P-5. Finally, he identified and proved the legal notice dated 18.02.2014 sent

¶24

¶25

to the respondent along with its postal receipt, which is marked as

¶26

Exhibit P-6.

¶27

Some extracts from the witness’s deposition in the case are as under:

¶28

“4. I say that the Petitioner and Respondent duly entered into an Affiliation Agreement for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2013, vide which the Respondent was authorized to retransmit signals of the Petitioner’s channels in some parts of Diu at a monthly subscription fees of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only), exclusive of taxes, for this period from 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2013. True copy of the affiliation agreement executed between the parties is exhibited herewith and marked as Exhibit P-1 (at pages 13 to 30 of the paper book).

¶29

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶30

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶31

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶32

I say that the Petitioner finally deactivated its signals of the Respondent on 31.01.2014 as the Respondent failed to make the requisite payment.

¶33

I say that the outstanding balance of the Respondent to the Petitioner as on 31.01.2014 is Rs.5,29,063/- (Rupees Five Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand and Sixty Three Only). The Respondent has failed to disburse the subscription fees which is an admitted debt and has been duly intimated to the respondent. A copy of the system generated statement of account maintained by the Petitioner qua the Respondent is exhibited herewith and marked as Exhibit P-5 (at page 42 of the paper book).

¶34

xxxxxxxxxxxx

¶35

¶36

I say that the petitioner has been supplying continuous and uninterrupted signals of its channels to the Respondent prior to 31.12.2014.”

¶37

The deposition of the witness remains unchallenged and there is no reason not to accept its veracity.

¶38

It is, however, to be noted that the interconnect agreement between the two sides came to end on 31.12.2013. Nonetheless, according to the petitioner, it continued the supply its signals to the petitioner till 31.01.2014 and it has claimed its dues upto that date. There is, however, no averment or any evidence to show that the supply of signals to the respondent beyond the period of the agreement was on the basis of any mutual agreement or understanding or with the consent of the respondent. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner should be entitled to its dues only for the period of the agreement and not for any period beyond the agreement.

¶39

We, accordingly, allow the claim of the petitioner till the period of the agreement i.e. 31.12.2013.

¶40

The petitioner is directed to file within two weeks from today a statement of account calculating its dues upto 31.12.2013 for the office to draw a decree on that basis. The decretal amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition to the date of actual payment.

¶41

¶42

Since the case has proceeded ex parte, there will be no order as to

¶43

costs.

¶44

......................... (Aftab Alam) Chairperson

¶45

........................... (Kuldip Singh) Member

¶46

sks

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajmoti Network

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajmoti Network

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

Srishti Ventures vs Inx News Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi Distribution Company vs Sahara India Tv Network

Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Lakshmi Devi Cables

Den Mcn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Aatmiya Cable

Seshank Cable Network & Ors. vs Den Network Ltd.

Cable Combine Communication Ltd. vs Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd.

Muthoot Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Hitz Fm Radio India Pvt. Ltd. vs Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Srishti Ventures vs Inx News Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi Distribution Company vs Sahara India Tv Network

Den Mcn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Pragnesh Shah

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. vs Maa Bhawani Cable Network

Cable Combine Communication Ltd. vs Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd.

Muthoot Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India