SRISHTI VENTURES Vs. INX NEWS PVT. LTD.
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Inx News Pvt. Ltd.
Click here to view full judgement.
Aftab Alam, J. (Chairperson) -
(1.) THE petitioner is a multi -system operator and the respondent is the broadcaster of a TV channel.
(2.) THIS petition is filed seeking recovery of Rs. 11,37,315/ - (along with interest) from the respondent as dues of carriage/placement charges. According to the petitioner, on 1 July 2011, the respondent entered into a placement agreement with the petitioner for carrying its channel "9X News" on the petitioner's network. The agreement was for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 and under its terms, the petitioner was to carry the respondent's channel on S -band on its net -work for the total consideration of Rs. 16 lakhs (exclusive of service tax and education cess) payable on quarterly basis. It is the case of the petitioner that as provided in the agreement, it duly carried the respondent's channel on its network on the stipulated band from 1 July 2011 to 22 February 2012 and after that date it put the channel on ordinary band, after giving one month's advance intimation to the respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in violation of the agreement, the respondent did not make any payment towards the placement charges and after making some futile demands (including a legal notice), the petitioner was compelled to come to the Tribunal in this petition. The respondent completely denied all allegations made by the petitioner and disowned the liability to make any payment whatsoever to the petitioner. In the reply filed by the respondent, it is categorically and repeatedly denied that there was any agreement between the two sides for carrying the respondent's channel on the petitioner's network. It is denied that any placement agreement with the petitioner was executed on behalf of the respondent on 1 July 2011 or on any other date. The denial of the respondent is quite long winded but suffices here to reproduce a part of paragraph 5 from the reply:
"The contents of paragraph No. 5 are incorrect and hence denied. It is incorrect to state that the Respondent had approached for placement of its TV Channel, i.e. 9X News at the desired frequency/band. It is denied that any placement agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent on 01.07.2011. The contents of the annexure, being Annexure P -2, are vehemently denied. It is denied that the said channel placement agreement was for a total period of Twelve (12) months. It is denied that the said placement agreement was starting from 01.07.2011 and ending on 30.06.2012. It is denied that the total consideration of the said Channel Placement Agreement was Rs. 1,60,00,000/ - plus service tax and education cess. It is denied that the disputed consideration was payable in four equal installments. It is denied that there were any terms arrived at between the parties."
(3.) KEEPING in view the respective cases of the parties, we now proceed to examine the placement agreement, forming the basis of the petitioner's claim, and the evidences adduced by parties in support or in denial of its legitimacy.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.