MA No. 308 of 2014 in Petition No. 420 (C) of 2014. Case: Siti Guntur Digital Network Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maa Television Network Ltd. and Ors.. TDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | MA No. 308 of 2014 in Petition No. 420 (C) of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: G.T. Rao, Advocate and For Respondents: Y. Rajagopala Rao, Advocate |
| Judges | Aftab Alam, J. (Chairperson) and Kuldip Singh, Member |
| Issue | Cable Television Networks (regulation) Act, 1995 - Section 4A; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 63, 65; Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 - Section 20 |
| Judgement Date | July 01, 2015 |
| Court | TDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Aftab Alam, J. (Chairperson)
-
The applicant, M/s. Siti Guntur Digital Network Pvt. Ltd. (Siti Guntur) is a Multi System Operator in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh which is a non-DAS area. It has filed this application, in a disposed of petition, with the prayer to punish respondent No. 2, M/s. Harika Cable Vision, A.P. (Harika) and impose fines on it, in terms of section 20 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, for wilfully violating the order of the Tribunal and committing breach of its undertaking given to the Tribunal.
-
Siti Guntur earlier came to the Tribunal in Petition No. 420(C) of 2014 alleging that Harika, another Multi System Operator was illegally retransmitting the signals of the channels of the broadcaster MAA Television Network Ltd. (MAA TV) in the area of Guntur where it did not have any interconnect agreement with the broadcaster. When the petition was taken up on 13 October 2014, there was no one appearing on behalf of Harika. However, counsel for MAA TV who was present, admitted that there was no subscription agreement between Harika and MAA TV for the Guntur area and Harika was apparently indulging in piracy by re-transmitting its signals received outside the Guntur area into Guntur. On those statements made before it, the Tribunal passed the following interim Order:
In those circumstances, we restrain respondent No. 2 from retransmitting any channels of respondent No. 1 in Guntur area.
It is made clear that any violation of this order will invite proceeding under section 20 of the TRAI Act.
-
On the next date (30 October 2014) it was stated on behalf of Harika that it had not been re-transmitting, either directly or indirectly the channels of MAA TV in the area of Guntur. Further, an undertaking was given that in future too Harika shall not transmit either directly or indirectly the channels of MAA TV in Guntur, as long as it does not enter into an interconnect agreement with MAA TV for the area of Guntur. Recording the statement made and the undertaking given on behalf of Harika, Petition No. 420(C) of 2014 was disposed of by passing the following order, in presence of the counsel for Siti Guntur and MAA TV:
Mr. Sharath Sampath, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2, namely, Harika Cable Vision and on instructions received from Mr. K. Anil Kumar, the authorised representative of respondent No. 2 (who is present in court) states that the respondent (Harika Cable Vision) has not been re-transmitting either directly or indirectly, the channels of MAA TV. Mr. Sampath also gives the undertaking that in future too the petitioner shall not transmit either directly or indirectly, in the area of Guntur, the channels of MAA TV as long as it does not enter into an interconnect agreement with MAA Television.
The statement made by Mr. Sampath satisfies the cause of action for the petition. It is accordingly disposed of with the caution that in case of violation of the undertaking respondent No. 2 shall bear the consequences.
-
Shortly thereafter, on...
To continue reading
Request your trial