MSM DISCOVERY PVT. LTD. Vs. BHAGWATI CABLE NETWORK
LAWS(TD)-2015-3-8
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 25,2015

MSM DISCOVERY PVT. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
Bhagwati Cable Network Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Aftab Alam, J. (Chairperson) - (1.) MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, is a broadcaster and it supplies its TV channels, for consideration, to MSOs for further distribution and re -transmission. It has filed this petition against, Bhagwati Cable Network, a sole proprietorship concern, operating as a multi -system operator, from whom the petitioner seeks recovery of Rs. 1,55,882/ - as dues of monthly subscription fees.
(2.) THE respondent did not appear despite repeated notices served to it and hence, the petition was proceeded ex parte. According to the petitioner, it had entered into a subscription agreement with the respondent on 23 April 2013 for retransmission of its TV channels at Putli Road, Laxmi Nagar in Kotputli town on payment of an agreed lump sum amount of Rs. 27,600/ - (exclusive of taxes) as monthly subscription charges. The subscription agreement was for the period 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013. Later, by a supplementary validation deed dated 30 May 2013, the monthly subscription charges were revised to Rs. 33,396/ - (exclusive of taxes) effective from 01.03.2013 till 31.12.2013.
(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was irregular in payment of its monthly subscription fee and defaulted in the monthly payments and as a result arrears of subscription fees amounting to Rs. 1,55,882/ - became due from it. The petitioner thereafter published public notices dated 23.02.2013 under clause 4.3 of the Regulations in the two leading local newspapers; viz (i) The Times of India (English) and (ii) Seema Sandesh (Regional). It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not pay its dues despite repeated reminders and hence, left with no other option, the petitioner issued a notice dated 1 October 2013 under clause 4.1 of the Interconnect Regulations. However, the respondent chose not to respond to the said notice as well. However, according to the petitioner, neither any payment nor any response was received from the respondent and therefore, the petitioner deactivated its signals to the respondent on 19.11.2013. The petitioner thereafter sent a legal notice dated 28.10.2013 to the respondent demanding its outstanding dues but the legal notice too failed to yield the desired result. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file this petition before the Tribunal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.