Allowed

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. v. City Cable Network

TDSAT10 Dec 2015BROADCASTING PETITION/9/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal, in an ex parte hearing, allowed the petitioner's claim for recovery of subscription fees (Rs. 3,99,095) and interest from the respondent MSO under a TV channel interconnect agreement, accepting un-rebutted evidence of default and notice.

What did the court decide?

Decree for recovery of Rs. 3,99,095 (exclusive of taxes) plus 10% interest from the date of filing till payment.

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. vs City Cable Network — Company and Corporate | TDSAT (2015)

¶1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

¶2

Dated 10^th December, 2015

¶3

Petition No. 9 (C) of 2014

¶4

MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

City Cable Network, Chattisgarh …Respondent

¶7

BEFORE:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER HON’BLE MR. BIPIN BIHARI SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. Azmat Amanullah, Advocate For Respondent : None

¶10

ORDER

¶11

By Aftab Alam, Chairperson – The petitioner, MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd.,

¶12

is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. It is a broadcaster of

¶13

TV channels within the meaning of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 (the Regulations). It has filed

¶14

this petition for recovery of Rs.3,99,095/- (exclusive of taxes), as dues of

¶15

¶16

subscription fees, from the respondent City Cable Networks, which is a multisystem operator (MSO).

¶17

According to the petitioner, on 14.08.2013 the respondent executed an interconnect agreement with it titled as “the affiliation agreement”. The agreement was for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner was to supply the signals of its TV channels to the respondent on payment of Rs.36,500/- exclusive of taxes (which came to Rs.41,011/- with taxes) as monthly subscription fee. The agreement also had a provision for interest on unpaid dues and in clause 2.5 it provided for interest on the unpaid dues @ 18% per annum for the entire period during which the default continued. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the agreement, it supplied the signals of its TV channels to the respondent from the date of commencement of the agreement.

¶18

It is further the case of the petitioner that the parties executed a supplementary agreement on 04.10.2013 by which the monthly subscription fee

¶19

was enhanced with effect from 01.04.2013 to Rs.40,050/- exclusive of taxes (which came to Rs.45,000/-) until the expiry of the agreement on 31.12.2013.

¶20

According to the petitioner, in terms of the agreement it supplied its signals to the respondent and raised invoices for payment of the monthly subscription fee but the respondent defaulted in payment and as a result the dues of subscription fee

¶21

¶22

accumulated to Rs.3,99,095/-. As the respondent did not make payment despite reminders, the petitioner, after due notices as required by the Regulations finally disconnected the supply of signals on 13.11.2013.

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner in support of its claim has examined one Vishal Kohli who worked as the Area Manager of the petitioner company as its witness. The witness fully supported the petitioner’s case. He proved the interconnect agreement dated 14.08.2013 which was marked as Exhibit P1. He also proved the invoices that were collectively marked as Exhibit P2. He proved the disconnection notices issued under clauses 4.1 and 4.3 of the Regulations which were marked as Exhibits P3 and P4 respectively. He proved the statement of account which was marked as Exhibit P5 as also the legal notice that was marked as Exhibit P6. He finally proved the supplementary agreement dated 04.10.2013 which was marked as Exhibit P7.

¶25

The pleadings and evidences produced by the petitioner remain un-rebutted. There is, therefore, no reason not to accept the claim of the petitioner and to hold it entitled to recovery of Rs.3,99,095/- (exclusive of taxes). The office is directed to

¶26

¶27

make a decree accordingly. The decretal amount shall also carry interest @ 10%

¶28

from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment.

¶29

In the result, the petition is allowed but as it is heard ex parte, there will be

¶30

no order as to costs.

¶31

………………. (AftabAlam) Chairperson

¶32

……………….. (Kuldip Singh) Member

¶33

…………………. (B.B. Srivastava)

¶34

Member

¶35

sks

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. v. City Cable Network

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. v. City Cable 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

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. vs Bongaigaon Cable

Maharaja Telesystem Pvt. Ltd. vs Den Networks Ltd.

Manthan Broadband Service Pvt. Ltd. vs Inx News Pvt. Ltd.

Darpita Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Sahara India

India Cast Utv Media Distribution Pvt. Ltd. vs S.R. Cable Tv Pvt. Ltd.

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. vs Sr Cable Tv Pvt. Ltd.

Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. (Earlier Known as Nxt Digital Ltd.) vs Om Cable Tv

Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. (Earlier Known as Nxt Digital Ltd.) vs Vipin Sehrawat and Anr.

Vodafone South Limited vs Union of India

Vodafone Spacetel Ltd. vs Union of India

Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs Union of India

Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. vs Bhusawal Network

Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. vs Sr Cable Tv Pvt. Ltd.

Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. (Earlier Known as Nxt Digital Ltd.) vs Om Cable Tv