Allowed

Ucn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd.

TDSAT2 May 2016BROADCASTING PETITION/478/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench adjudicated a broadcasting petition filed by UCN Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of outstanding dues from Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd. due to defaults on channel placement agreements. The petition was allowed based on documentary evidence and the respondent's non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 67,21,500/- with interest at 8% from 28.8.2015 within eight weeks from the date of the order.

Ucn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd. — Company and Corporate | TDSAT (2016)

¶1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

¶2

Dated 2^nd May, 2016

¶3

Broadcasting Petition No. 478 of 2015

¶4

UCN Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

…Respondent

¶8

BEFORE:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR.B.B.SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate Mr. Anurup Narula, Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : None

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This petition has been filed by UCN Cable Network Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, an established cable operator/Multi System Operator (MSO), engaged in the business of supplying, distributing/retransmitting Pay channels and FTA Channels of different broadcasters to

¶14

¶15

various customers including households through its distributors as well as its own cable channels.

¶16

The petitioner seeks recovery of an amount of Rs. 67,21,500/- along with interest @24% from the respondent, Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in managing the TV channel, News Express and a broadcaster within the meaning of the said term in the interconnect regulation.

¶17

The case of the petitioner is that it entered into an agreement dated 29.10.2012, with the respondent for the period 1.8.2012 to 30.7.2013 for carrying the latter’s channel, News Express on its network. According to the petitioner, a fresh agreement dated 14.6.2014 was again executed between the petitioner and the respondent for the period 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015. The consideration money for placement of the news channel (“News Express”) was Rs. 75 Lakhs excluding applicable service tax. The petitioner has averred that it carried the channels from its network and placed them on the desired frequency as mentioned in the agreement; and raised regular invoices upon the respondent. However, the respondent in breach of the terms of the agreement did not make payment of the agreed amount; and the total outstanding as on 31.3.2015 amounted to Rs. 67,21,500/-. The petitioner has

¶18

also submitted that under the previous agreement as well the respondent had defaulted to the extent of Rs. 93,63,328/-, due and payable to the petitioner till 31.3.2014. It has been stated that only in pursuance of a notice dated 5.3.2014, the respondent made a payment of Rs. 90,55,038/-, on 07 April, 2014. However, no

¶19

¶20

payment was received from the respondent thereafter. It has been stated that another notice dated 18.3.2015 was served upon the respondent for payment of Rs.

¶21

67,21,500/-. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the agreement dated 14.6.2014 (Annexure P1) copies of invoices, (Annexure P2 colly), statement of account (Annexure P3), notice dated 5.3.2014 (Annexure P4) and notice dated 18.3.2015 (Annexure P5).

¶22

There has been no appearance on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice and as a result thereof the petition was directed to proceed ex parte on 15.12.2015.

¶23

In view of the facts stated in aforestated paragraphs we now proceed to examine the placement agreement, following the basis of petitioner’s claim, other documents and evidences adduced by the petitioner in support of its claim and legitimacy thereof.

¶24

The perusal of the placement agreement (Annexure P1) reveals that it is duly executed placement agreement between the respondent and the petitioner, clearly spelling out legal, technical and commercial rights and responsibilities of both parties. The invoices annexed as well as statement of accounts also confirm payment on 7.4.2014 of an amount Rs. 90,55,038/- and the outstanding liability of the respondent to the tune of Rs. 67,21,500/- towards the petitioner. The legal notices apropos outstanding amount to the respondent have purportedly been communicated and sent through registered post with A.D./courier, although no proof regarding its dispatch has been produced. The sole witness on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Amit Aggarwal, working as Manager, Legal in the petitioner company submitted his

¶25

¶26

evidence through affidavit and he has formally proved the documents annexed with

¶27

the petition. Mr. Aggarwal was examined by the Advocate Commissioner on 18^th and

¶28

21^st January, 2016 and his evidence has been taken on record.

¶29

In view of the facts and circumstances as well as documents and evidences available in support of petitioner’s claim, as well as consistent refusal on the part of respondent to present its case by way of nonappearance, we find and hold that the agreement has been acted upon by both sides; albeit only partially by the respondent. Accordingly, we feel that there is merit in the case of the petitioner; and the petition is allowed. The outstanding dues of Rs. 67,21,500/-, as on 31.3.2015, shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. This amount shall be paid within eight weeks from the date of the order and the same shall also carry interest at the rate of 8% from 28.8.2015 i.e., the date of filing of the petition till this amount is paid to the petitioner.

¶30

No costs.

¶31

…………………. (Aftab Alam) Chairperson

¶32

..…...………………. (B.B. Srivastava) Member

¶33

/NS/

Ucn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ucn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Sai Prasad Media 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

Honey Sky Vision vs Inx News Pvt. Ltd.

Gtpl Hathway Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Digicable Network India Pvtltd vs Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd.

Home System Pvt. Ltd. vs Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Ucn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Airan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Cable Operators Sangram Association vs Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd.

Ucn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Raj Cable Network,Haryana

Cable Operators Sangram Association vs Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd.

Honey Sky Vision vs Inx News Pvt. Ltd.

Ucn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Airan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Cable Operators Sangram Association vs Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd.

Ucn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Raj Cable Network,Haryana