Allowed

Ortel Communication Ltd. v. Aryan Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

TDSAT24 Apr 2015BROADCASTING PETITION/132/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order adjudicates a civil petition for recovery of Rs. 9,92,700 outstanding dues of carriage fees. The respondent failed to appear despite notice. The appellate tribunal accepted the petitioner's uncontroverted claim on evidence and decreed the payment with 10% interest.

What did the court decide?

Decree drawn for Rs. 9,92,700/- with 10% per annum interest from the date of filing.

Ortel Communication Ltd. vs Aryan Infratech Pvt… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | TDSAT (2015)

¶1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

¶2

Dated 24th April, 2015

¶3

Petition No. 132 (C) of 2014

¶4

M/s Ortel Communications Ltd., New Delhi

¶5

M/s Ortel Communications Ltd., New Delhi … Petitioner Versus Aryan Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar …Respondent

¶6

BEFORE:

¶7

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

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.Devender Thakur, Advocate For Respondent : None

¶9

ORDER

¶10

Kuldip Singh

¶11

This is a petiton for recovery of Rs. 9,92,700/- as outstanding

¶12

dues of carriage fees payable by the respondent to the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner - M/s Ortel Communications Ltd. is a Multi System Operator (MSO) in terms of the interconnect regulations. It is in the business of distribution of TV signals directly to the subscribers.

¶14

The respondent is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at House No. N2/57, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015, Distt.-Khurda,

¶15

¶16

Odisha. The Respondent is engaged in the business of broadcasting television signals and owns a channel “A2Z NEWS”.

¶17

The respondent did not appear despite service of notice and hence, the petition proceeded ex-parte .

¶18

According to the petitioner, it entered into a Carriage and Placement Agreement dated 02-02-2011 for the placement and distribution of A2Z News Channel of the Respondent on the network of the Petitioner effective from 01-01-2011 for a period of one year. For this, an yearly payment of Rs. 36,00,000/- was to be made by the respondent to the petitioner in terms of the agreement.

¶19

The Petitioner carried the channel A2Z News on its network at the specified frequency to the satisfaction of the Respondent. As per the petitioner, no complaint of any nature pertaining to the carriage and placement of the channel was made by the Respondent at any point of time. Though as per the petitioner, it raised invoices on the Respondent from time to time, the respondent failed to make regular payments to the Petitioner, which resulted in building up of this outstanding dues of Rs. 9,92,700/- as on 30.04.2012.

¶20

¶21

Due to the default of the Respondent in clearing its outstanding dues, the Petitioner was constrained to remove the channel A2Z News from its network and stopped the placement and carriage of the same on its network w.e.f. 31^st October, 2011.

¶22

Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent again approached it to carry and distribute its channel from its head-end at Odisha. It assured the Petitioner that the pending dues would be cleared. Accordingly, the parties again entered into Carriage and Placement Agreement on 15-04-2012 for a period of one year and for a yearly payment of Rs. 36,50,000/-.

¶23

As per the petitioner, the Respondent issued five Post-dated cheques (PDCs) amounting to Rs. 58,011,40/- which included the previous outstanding for Odisha and Raipur Location and the advance payments for the monthly carriage fee. Further, when the petitioner presented the first two cheques namely cheque no. 365158 dated 1604-2012 and cheque no. 365156 dated 30-04-2012 with its banker, the same were returned dishonoured for reason “Funds Insufficient”. Consequently, the Petitioner filed Criminal Complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 being CC No. 1752/2012

¶24

and 1925/2012 in the court of Ld. SDJM Bhubaneswar.

¶25

¶26

Photocopies of the 2 placement agreements, statement of accounts, copies of the various invoices and Criminal Complaints have been annexed with the petition.

¶27

In support of its case, the petitioner has examined Mr. Sudipta Pradhan, who is working as executive in the Petitioner company as its witness. The witness identified the photocopies of the carriage and placement agreement dated 2.2.2011 as Exhibit PW-1/1, photocopies of various invoices raised by the Petitioner upon the Respondent as Exhibit PW-1/2 (Colly), the Statement of Account for the period 01-042011 to 30-04-2012 as Exhibit PW-1/3, copy of the Carriage and Placement Agreement dated 15.4.2012 as Exhibit PW-1/4, photocopies of the five Post-dated cheques issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner as Exhibit PW-1/5 (Colly), photocopies of the Criminal Complaints filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent before the Ld. SDJM, District Courts, Bhubaneswar as Exhibit PW-1/6 and Exhibit PW-1/7 and copy of the Statement of Accounts showing the outstanding of the Respondent for Odisha as Exhibit PW-1/8.

¶28

The witness in its deposition has stated has under :

¶29

“4. I say that the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into Carriage and Placement Agreement dated 02-02-2011 for the placement and distribution of A2Z News Channel of the

¶30

¶31

Respondent on the network of the Petitioner effective from 0101-2011 for a period of one year at the yearly payment of Rs. 36,00,000/- only (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Only). Photocopy of the Carriage and Placement Agreement is exhibited hereto as Exhibit PW-1/1.

¶32

5. I say that the Petitioner placed the channel A2Z News on its network at the specified frequency and carried the same on its network to the satisfaction of the Respondent. I further say that no complaint of any nature pertaining to the carriage and placement of the channel was made by the Respondent at any point of time. I say that for the placement and carriage of the Respondent’s channel A2Z News in its network, the Petitioner raised invoices on the Respondent from time to time. Photocopy of the various invoices raised by the Petitioner upon the Respondent is exhibited hereto as Exhibit PW-1/2 (Colly).

¶33

6. I say that the Respondent failed to make regular payments to the Petitioner under the terms of agreement. The details of the part payments made by the Respondent towards its liability under the agreement are as follows:

¶34

Date	Amount received	Cheque No.
04-01-2011	Rs. 100,000/-	By Cash
08-01-2011	Rs. 500,000/-	By Cash
14-01-2011	Rs. 400,000/-	By Cash
10-03-2011	Rs. 33,333/-	609060
10-03-2011	Rs. 328,467/-	By Cash
25-05-2011	Rs. 292,700/-	661283
12-03-2012	Rs. 661,800/-	By Cash

¶35

7. I say that due to the default of the Respondent in clearing its outstanding under the agreement the Petitioner was constrained to remove the channel A2Z News from its network and stopped the placement and carriage of the same on its

¶36

¶37

network w.e.f. 31^st October, 2011. I say that a sum of Rs. 9,92,700/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Seven Hundred Only) remained as outstanding and payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner as on 30-04-2012. The Account Statement for the period 01-04-2011 to 30-04-2012 is annexed Exhibited as Exh. PW-1/3.”

¶38

Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent to controvert the averments made by the petitioner and the deposition of the witness remained un-rebutted.

¶39

In view of the discussion above, we accept the petitioner’s claim and allow the petition ex-parte . The Registry is directed to draw a decree against the respondent for a sum of Rs. 9,92,700/-. The decretal amount will also carry an interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

¶40

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

¶41

………………. (Aftab Alam) Chairperson

¶42

….………………. (Kuldip Singh) Member

¶43

/NC/

¶44

Ortel Communication Ltd. v. Aryan Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ortel Communication Ltd. v. Aryan Infratech 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

Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Sakthi Seventh Channel Tv & Ors.

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. vs Bhagwati Cable Network

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. vs Palani Taluk Cable Tv Operators & Owner Association

Harika Cable Vision vs Maa Television Network Ltd. A.P.

Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. vs Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd.

Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Durga Cable Network

Siti Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Noida Software Technology Park vs Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Association of Unified Telecom Service Provider of India vs Union of India

Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Sakthi Seventh Channel Tv & Ors.

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. vs Bhagwati Cable Network

Cellular Operators Association of India vs Union of India

Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Durga Cable Network

Siti Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Star India Pvt. Ltd.