Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: telecom disputes settlement and appellate tribunal tdsat Page 10 of about 320 results (0.156 seconds)

Jul 04 2011 (TRI)

M/S. Guntur Communication Network Pvt. Ltd., A.P Vs. M/S. Eswar Cable ...

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

The Applicant herein has filed this petition for setting aside an ex-parte decree passed by this Tribunal on 6.10.2010, whereby and whereunder a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,82,200/ as the principal amount and a sum Rs. 20,232/- by way of interest totaling to Rs. 3,00,644/-, was passed. 2. The Respondent herein is a Multi Service Operator. 3. The petitioner has been carrying on the business as a link operator in the town of Guntur under the name and style of M/s. Eswar Cable Vision. 4. It is a partnership firm comprising of four partners. A Deed of Partnership was executed by the said partners on 8.8.2004. 5. According to the Applicant, having been suffering losses it had closed down its business sometimes in July 2009. The Applicant, furthermore, denies and disputes the jural relationship between the parties. . Indisputably, the original petitioner- the respondent herein had entered into an agreement with the Applicant in the year of 2007, pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, the...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2011 (TRI)

Etisalat Db Telecom (P) Ltd Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

S. B. SINHA 1. The Petitioner is a Licensee; the license having been granted in terms of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (The Act). One M/s. Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. had been granted UASL license for 13 telecom circles. It’s name, however, was subsequently changed to ETISALAT DB Telecom (P) Ltd. (Company). The first respondent represents the Department of Telecommunication. The second respondent is one of the units/wings of the DOT being responsible for handling activities relating to collection of spectrum charges, licence fee, maintenance of bank guarantees issued by the licensees etc. The respondent no. 3 is a Nationalised bank. 2. The petitioner initially had acquired 100 % shares in one Allianz Infratek Pvt. Ltd. (Allianz). It was granted license for the circles of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. In terms of the provisions of the said license, Allianz was required to furnish performance bank guarantees. It also furnished a financial bank guarantee dated 29.7.2008 for a s...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 2011 (TRI)

Shalini Zen Tv Network Vs. Sumangali Cable Vision

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

S.B. Sinha The petitioner is a multi service operator. It’s area of operation is Thanjavur in the State of Tamil Nadu. It consisted of two MSOs, Shalini Cable System (Shalini) and Zee Max Entertainment Network (Zen). 2. Indisputably, it had been supplying signals to about 164 cable operators in the said town. The petitioner had a control room whereat it used to receive the signals of various channels of the broadcasters wherefor it was supplied with their respective IRD boxes. 3. The respondent herein is also a Multi Service Operator. It is said to be belonging to the Sun group of broadcasters and content aggregators. It had its head end in the town of Trichy. It started supply of signals in the town of Thanjavur sometimes in November/December, 2009. It was supplying signals in the said town through a Railtel fibre link (Railtel) from Trichy. 4. Indisputably, petitioner entered into negotiations with respondent as according to it, the latter had started interfering with and damag...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 2011 (TRI)

P.R.T. Satellite Network System Vs. Sun Distribution Services

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

The petitioner herein is a distributor of TV channels. The respondent is a content aggregator of various channels including the Sun Group of Broadcasters. 2. The petitioner filed a petition before this Tribunal, which was marked as Petition No. 255 (C) of 2010. By an order dated 03.8.2010, the prayer for an order of injunction in that petition was refused, as had been prayed for, stating :- “One of the contentions raised by Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before us was that the public notice had been published only in one newspaper and not in any regional newspaper. Ms. Sibal produced before us copies of two newspapers to show the requirements of clause 4.3 of regulations has in fact been complied with. The petitioner has even not annexed the copies of the invoices for the months of January, 2009 to March, 2009 wherein the number of subscriber base in respect of the aforementioned three channels would tally with those in the agreement. Nothing h...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 2011 (TRI)

Tata Communications Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

S.B. Sinha The petitioner who is an ISP licensee and inter alia carries on business of internet telephone has filed this petition claiming inter alia the following reliefs:-  (a) “quashing and setting aside the impugned demand notice dated January 2011 (Annexure – 1) of the respondents; (b) strike out from the definition of gross revenue in the ISP license in clause 1.1(v) three items of income namely “revenue on account of interest, dividend and any other miscellaneous revenue”, (c) strike out clause 13.4 (A) (h) in the ISP license, imposing 50% penalty on shortfall of license fees.” 2. By reason of the impugned bills, the petitioner has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 8,35,642/- for the assessment years 2005 - 2006 and 2006 -2007. The said bills read as under:- This is regarding assessment of Annual License fee assessment in respect of:- Service Category ISP (IT) License No. (1) 820-240/99- LR 20.09.1999- Delhi Area), (2) 820-281/99-LR Dated 17...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 2011 (TRI)

Variety Entertainment Pvt. Ltd Vs. Espn Software India Pvt. Ltd. and A ...

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

G.D. Gaiha The petitioner is a Multi Service Operator. It has filed this petition for a direction upon the respondent who is a broadcaster within the meaning of provisions of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations, 2004 (The Regulations) in respect of three of its products commonly known as ESPN, Star Sports and Star Cricket on settlement of commercial terms. 2. The dispute between the parties relates to the subscriber base. According to petitioner having regard to the provisions of the Cable Services (2nd) Tariff (9th Amendment) Order, 2008, the maximum amount of charges payable by a subscriber per month being Rs.235/- for the town of Bhubaneswar, the rates for the principal channels would come to Rs.405.13paise, it would be impossible for any MSO to comply with the said order. 3. According to Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner it is submitted that its subscriber base would be 13.76% and thus the re...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 2011 (TRI)

Reliance Communications Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Ne ...

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

Mr. P.K. Rastogi, Member The present application has been filed for review of para 6 and 8 of the interim order dated 27.05.2011 passed in M.A. No. 134 of 2011 filed in the pending Petition No.96 of 2011.  2. According to the petitioner the said paragraphs recorded statements which were not submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, neither there was any statement or averment in the said M.A. No. 134 of 2011 regarding agreement/consent of the petitioner either on the issue of the due date for the purpose of calculation of interest or with regard to the refund of ADC amount by the petitioner to the respondent for the period 01.02.2004 to 14.11.2004.  Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the order dated 27.05.2011 is reproduced below :  “6. Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of  the petitioner has submitted that this Tribunal by its interim order dated 18.04.2011 had clarified that only amount paid by the respondent to the petitioner for t...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 2011 (TRI)

Jaipur Cable T.V. Network Vs. Den Sky Media Networks Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

G.D. GAIHA These petitions by Jaipur Cable TV Network (Jaipur) are principally directed against Den Sky India Pvt. Ltd. (DEN), a Multi System Operator having a pan India presence. In Petition No.129 (c) of 2010, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for issuance of a directions upon Den Sky Pvt. Ltd. For restoration of supply of signals to its cable TV network and entering into a new subscription agreement for the year 2010-2011. In the said petition, a Miscellaneous Application was filed marked as M.A. No. 330 of 2010 wherein a prayer was made for a direction upon respondent not to disconnect the supply of signals to its cable TV network. Indisputably, during pendency of the said petition, respondents had issued notices dated 10.11.2010 and 13.11.2010 being under Clauses 4.1. and 4.3 of the Regulations terminating the existing agreement inter-alia on the premise that the petitioner has not executed a fresh Interconnect Agreement as also on the ground of non-payment of the outstanding a...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 2011 (TRI)

R.R. Cable Network Vs. Sun Tv Network and Sun Distribution Services

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

S.B. SINHA The petitioner by way of this Petition, has questioned the legality and/or validity of a notice issued by Respondent herein purported to be under Regulation 4.1 of the Telecom (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations, 2004 as amended from time to time (The Regulations), whereby and whereunder respondent on the ground of default on the part of petitioner for a sum of Rs.7,90,503.48 as also a public notice dated 28.4.2010, has approached this Tribunal claiming, inter-alia, the following reliefs :- “(i) Direct the respondent to restore and continue the supply the signals of KTV, Sun TV and Sun News to the network of the petitioner as per law without any interruption. (ii) Direct the respondent to enter into a fresh subscription agreement with the petitioner as this Hon. Tribunal may deem fit and proper in circumstances of this case. (iii) Direct the respondent to give the disconnection credit for the period from 19.5.2010 to the date of restoration of...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 2011 (TRI)

Wire and Wireless India Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/S Information Tv Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT

S.B. Sinha  These two petitions involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The basic fact of the matter being not in dispute, we may notice the same in brief from Petition No.392(C) of 2010. Suffice, however, it to say that the parties hereto entered into two agreements for carriage of the channels of respondent which is a broadcaster for the towns of Delhi and Kanpur. We may notice the relevant clauses of one of the agreements being dated 20.5.2008 “2.Term This Agreement shall be valid for a period of One (1) Year starting from 20.05.2008 and ending on 19.05.2009 save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, it is agreed between the parties hereto that this Agreement would be predetermined if ITPL turns its channel/s into a pay TV channel.” “5.CHARGES/CARRIAGE FEE: For the carriage of ITPL India News Channel across the cable television networks of WWIL situated at Delhi includi...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //