Telecom Disputes Settlement Tribunal
Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd vs Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd on 20 February, 2026
1
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
Dated 20th February 2026
RA No. 7 of 2023
(with MA No. 253 of 2023)
in
Broadcasting Petition No. 391 of 2016
Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. ...Applicant / Petitioner
Vs.
M/s Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER
For Petitioner : Ms Shirin Khajuria, Sr. Advocate
Ms Nayan Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Swati Tiwari
Mr. Gopal
For Respondent : Mr Aljo K. Joseph, Advocate
2
JUDGMENT
1. This Review Application No. 7 of 2023, under section 14 A, read with Section 16(2) (f) of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act, 1997), is preferred by petitioner / applicant, seeking review / clarification and modification, of the final judgment and order dated 9.8.2023, decree dated 29.8.2023, in a recovery Petition BP No. 391 of 2016, wherein, while granting the balance principal amount due and interest pendente lite, this Tribunal has apparently, inadvertently and unintentionally, missed granting interest which was due upto the date of filing of BP No. 391 of 2016. Interest pendente lite is not clarified to be on the balance due from time to time.
2. In brief, the contention of this application is, BP No. 391 of 2016, filed on 31.5.2016, filed by the petitioner / review applicant, was for a recovery of carriage and placement fees, due under two signed and legally binding agreements, for channel carriage and placement i.e. first agreement, dated 1.2.2024, for the period 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2015, and second agreement, dated 28.7.2015, for the period 1.6.2015 to 31.5.2017. The total contract value, payable under both the agreements was, Rs. 7,14,82,350/-. Annexure P-7 at pages 98 to 3 101 of the petition, was with detailed statement of accounts, including amounts paid and payable, as well as calculation of interest accrued there at, till the date of filing of petition on 31.5.2016 @ 18% p.a., as per clause 2 of the contracts, amounted to Rs. 68,55,109.04.
3. Issues were framed. Evidences were led. Arguments were heard.
Impugned judgment was got passed.
4. As noted in the final judgment, at paras 12 and 13, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the respondent made further, adhoc payments. These were accordingly, reflected in the evidence affidavit of PW-1, filed on behalf of petitioner, on 4.1.2017, at page 12, alongwith statement of accounts, attached thereto, as exhibit PW 8 at pages 60 to 74, which shows a balance principal sum of Rs. 3,31,76,705/-, due and payable, till the end of the agreement, after giving credit to the respondent, for payments till 31.12.2016, besides interest amount to Rs. 86,13,292.49, due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner, till 31.12.2016. On 2.3.2023, just prior to the proposed final hearing, in all fairness, the petitioner had filed an additional Affidavit, in view of further payments, wherein, it was stated that, at the present time, a total sum of Rs. 6,09,14,020/-, had 4 been paid by the respondent, from time to time, and adjusted towards the principal amount, due under the two agreements of Rs. 7,14,42,350/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,05,68,330/-, was the balance towards the principal amount, under the agreements, besides interest of Rs. 2,31,55,612/-, calculated at the contractual rate of 18% p.a., from the dates the principal amount became due from time to time, till 21.12.2022.
5. Vide impugned judgment, dated 9.8.2023, recovery petition was got allowed, and decreed in favour of the petitioner. But on the face of it, inadvertently, apparent error crept in calculation of interest, which resulted formation of decree erroneously. It is pertinent to point out that interest amount of Rs. 2,31,55,612/-, mentioned in para 21 of the judgment, and shown in exhibit P-9, was as on 21.12.2022, and also included the amount of Rs. 68,55,109.04, being interest on the amount, due prior to the filing of the petition on 31.05.2016. But Tribunal inadvertently, failed in granting to the petitioner, interest amount of Rs. 68,55,109.04, due upto the date of filing of petition, and has only granted pendente lite interest, and after calculating pendente lite interest @ 18% p.a. upto 21.12.2022, a total sum of Rs. 1,63,01,503.38 will accrue.
5
6. Hence, this Review cum modification application, with above prayer to pass the decree / order in favour of above petitioner and against the respondent, for an amount of Rs. 68,55,109.04, being interest calculated @ 18% p.a, on the amount due of Rs. 1,95,88,705/-, for delay in payment of carriage fees, as calculated upto 31.05.2016, with the further specification that the interest pendente lite is to be calculated @ 9% p.a., on the principal amount that became due by the respondent to the petitioner, from time to time, during the pendency of the petition, which amounts to Rs. 81,50,751.69, from the date of filing till 21.12.2022, and correction of a typographical error, which had already been corrected in decree regarding the word 'petitioner' instead of 'respondent' as well as a formal correction of 'Jeevan TV' in place of 'Jeevan Sathi', written in the judgment.
7. This application has been objected, by way of reply, that total consideration for carriage and placement in terms of the agreement, dated 28.07.2015 was Rs. 3,30,00,000/-, which is mentioned as Rs. 1,60,00,000/-, for the first year, and Rs. 1,70,00,000/-, for the second year. Thus, a total consideration of Rs. 6,10,00,000/-, supposed to be paid to the Petitioner, by Respondent, in terms of 6 the agreement, dated 1st February, 2014, and 28th July, 2015, by the end of 31st May, 2017, and this fact regarding Principal amount, is undisputed, because of being mentioned in the agreement itself. Whereas, Petitioner in Para 4 of the present Review Application, has mentioned Principal amount to be of Rs. 7,14,82,350/-, which is absolutely incorrect, and contrary to the agreements. The calculation made by Petitioner is absolutely erroneous. Respondent continued to pay the Petitioner during the entire period. But, the payment which has been made by Respondent to the Petitioner was not accounted for in the present case. The total amount paid till 31.12.2016, as admitted by both the parties, pertaining to this contract, is Rs. 3,83,05,645/-. Thereafter, Respondent paid Rs. 2,26,08,375/- to Petitioner, after 31.12.2016. Hence, a total of Rs. 6,09,14,020/-, was paid by Respondent to the Petitioner. Entire Principal amount was paid way back in 2020, except Rs. 85,980/-, to be paid by Respondent. But, owing to wrong calculation, submitted by Petitioner, the impugned Judgment was passed, and this Review application is also with erroneous contention. Hence, a prayer for dismissal of it.
7
8. Rejoinder by Petitioner with same repetition of facts of Petition, as well as of Review application was made.
9. Heard Learned Counsel for both side and gone through the material placed on record.
10. From the very perusal of record, it is apparent that Broadcasting Petition No. 391 of 2016, was filed by Petitioner - present Review Applicant, against Respondent- present Opposite Party, with a prayer for a decree, in favour of Petitioner against Respondent, for a sum of Rs. 1,95,88,705/- towards outstanding Carriage Fee upto 31.05.2016, plus Rs. 68,55,109.04/-, towards interest, calculated @18% per annum, over above Principal Amount of outstanding subscription Carriage Fee, upto 31.05.2016, with a further prayer for amount of Rs. 2,20,40,000/-, towards the balance Carriage Fee, for period 2016 - 2017, with a prayer for interest in the tune of 18% per annum over it, amounting to total sum of Rs. 2,64,43,814.04/- with future award of pendente lite and future interest, from 01.06.2016 till actual date of payment.
11. This Petition was replied by Respondent, with a contention that Respondent, being a registered Company, runs a Free to Air Regional Satellite Television Channel and operates with the aim of providing 8 great service to the people of Kerala by promoting family and constitutional values, respect for integrity of the country, as well as providing the public with a Kerala centric view of the world, in India as well as Persian Gulf. Agreement dated 01.02.2014 and 31.05.2015, with the Petitioner Company was undisputed. The amount as well as interest accrued there at, get disputed, with a further contention of admission, of payment by Respondent, written in Paragraph 4 of the Petition, with a reservation regarding the missing of certain payments made by Respondent to Petitioner. But, it had always been ready and willing to make payment of its just and legitimate dues to its accrued, albeit, in accordance with law and due process.
12. The issues were framed by Court of Registrar. Evidences were led by both side.
13. But, additional affidavit by Petitioner, with Statement of Account, subsequent to the fact stated by PW-1, R.P. Arun Raj in its affidavit evidence, filed on 4.01.2017, with a specific contention, that when Evidence Affidavit was filed on 04.01.2017, it was stated that Respondent had made some intermittent payments after the filling of the present Petition on 31.05.2016, amounting to Rs. 9 3,83,05,645/-, as of 31.12.2016, towards the outstanding dues, claimed in the present Petition. After adjusting the aforesaid payment, the Respondent was obligated to pay a sum of Rs. 3,31,76,705/- towards the balance Principal amount, upto the end of Agreement period i.e., 31.05.2017 and Rs. 86,13,292.49/-, towards interest @18% p.a., calculated upto 10.12.2016. Thenafter additional payments were made, which were shown in the table. The specific contention was as on date of this affidavit, outstanding amount remains Rs. 1,05,68,330/-, which was requested to be decreed towards the Principal amount, alongwith interest calculated, @ 18% per annum, over the above amount till 21.12.2022, i.e., in the tune of Rs. 2,31,55,612.42/-. Thereby, the claimed amount is now reduced to above Principal amount, and interest calculated till 21.12.2022, @ 18% per annum. This additional affidavit was replied by Respondent, and in the argument, these developments were taken into consideration and the impugned Judgment had been passed, discussing each and every issue in view of the fact and law argued and placed on record.
14. Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajender Kumar Vs Rambhai (2002) SCC Online SC 478, as well law laid down in SLP (C) No. 12787 OF 2025 10 Malleeswari Vs K. Suguna and Anr, has propounded the narrow areas of the ground of review of judgment by the same court, which are -
(i) The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked, if there is, something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
(iii) The phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories, which court thinks with regard to failure of justice.11
15. This Tribunal in RA No. 9 of 2023 in BP No. 617 of 2016 - Intermedia Cable Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sahara India TV Network, vide its judgment dated 6.2.2026, has also followed the above precedent of Hon'ble Apex Court.
16. In the present case, the argument of learned senior counsel for review applicant / petitioner is with regard to interest stated to be due and accrued on the date of filing of this petition @ 18% p.a., ought to be awarded in the decree, as per previous statement of account, given in the evidence affidavit of PW-1, before this subsequent affidavit, is not tenable because of the facts and circumstances that during the pendency of this petition, the intermittent payment was being made and was being accepted by the petitioner, and it was the petitioner, who has filed its additional affidavit of evidence, specifying, in a very clear terms about the remaining amount to be considered in final judgment and this Tribunal in its impugned judgment, has elaborately discussed those facts, in concerned issues, decided by it. The further opinion is not being reiterated or commented in its own judgment, exercising its review jurisdiction.
12
17. Hence, an appeal has been preferred before Hon'ble Apex Court.
Matter had been raised before Appellate forum. The ground for review and the argument advanced are of the nature of re-argument and re-appreciation of facts and law in exercise of review jurisdiction, which is not permitted in the narrow scope of review. Rather, may be permissible under appellate jurisdiction only.
18. Hence, the ground for this review /modification application is of no merit.
19. However, typographical errors, first one regarding mentioning of 'respondent' as 'petitioner' has been written to be cured in the decree and other one is regarding the name of 'Jeevan TV' written as 'Jeevan Sathi'. The same is and appears to be by arguing these words by the counsel during the course of hearing. It is being mentioned to be treated as corrected one, wherever 'Jeevan Sathi' is written in the impugned judgment, the same is to read as 'Jeevan TV' by all concerned.
13
20. Resultantly, this review application / modification application is being dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
...................
(Justice Ram Krishna Gautam) Member 20.02.2026 /NC/