Delhi High Court - Orders
Multicity Digital Consortium Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Star India Pvt. Ltd on 17 April, 2023
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4727/2023 & CM APPLs. 18266/2023, 18267/2023,
18483/2023
MULTICITY DIGITAL CONSORTIUM PVT. LTD.
& ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. J Sai Deepak, Mr. Shubham Jain,
Mr. Himanshu Dhawan, Advocates.
versus
STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kunal Tandon, Mr. Kumar
Shashank Shekhar, Ms. Niti Jain &
Ms. Sivangi Chawla, Advocates (M-
78383 79879)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 17.04.2023
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 18267/2023 & 18483/2023 (for exemptions)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) 4727/2023 & CM APPL. 18266/2023 (interim stay)
3. The present petition challenges the impugned orders of Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) dated 23rd May, 2022, 27th July, 2022 and 23rd February, 2023 passed in Broadcasting Petition No.615/2021 titled Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Multicity Digital Consortium. The crux of the dispute is that Petitioner No.1, a Multi System Operator (MSO) operating in Coimbatore, had entered into a Reference Interconnection Agreement (RIO Agreement) with the Respondent dated 15th September, 2020. The case of the Respondent is that the Petitioners gave the monthly subscription reports (MSRs) from time to time. However, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 4727/2023 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:19.04.2023 12:50:38 the Petititioner failed to pay the subscription amounts. Hence, the Respondent filed a recovery petition before the TDSAT being broadcasting petition no. 615/2021 seeking recovery of sum of Rs.1,55,35,743/-.
4. The TDSAT considered the matter and on 23rd May, 2022 passed the following order:
"Having heard the counsels for the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this petition has been preferred for recovery of approximately Rs. 1.55 crores. The statement of account is at Annexure P-6 to the memo of petition. Moreover, looking to the Annexure P-3 to the memo of petition which is a communication dated 24.3.2021 and also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct the respondent to deposit Rs. 70 lakhs on or before 5.7.2022 by way of Bank Draft before the Registrar of this Tribunal, who shall accept the said amount and shall deposit the same in a Nationalised Bank in a Fixed Deposit initially for the period of one year. The deposition of the aforesaid amount shall not tantamount to admission of any fact by the petitioner. This matter is, therefore, adjourned to 27.7.2022."
5. As per the above order, the Petitioner was to deposit a sum of Rs.70 lakhs on or before 5th July, 2022. Till date, however, admittedly, no amount has been deposited leading to various subsequent orders being passed, including the order dated 27th July, 2022 calling for list of assets of the Directors, freezing of account and order dated 21st February, 2023, issuing non-bailable warrants against Mr. Rajagopal Satish- Director of Petitioner No.1. The matter has been thereafter adjourned to 18th April, 2023.
6. Mr. Sai Deepak, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that no averments have been made in the petition filed before the TDSAT which Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 4727/2023 Page 2 of 4 Signing Date:19.04.2023 12:50:38 warrants lifting of the corporate veil and to make Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 personally liable in the matter. Moreover, it is his submission that TDSAT, having the same powers as the civil court cannot issued bailable and non- bailable warrants.
7. After some hearing, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners - Mr. Sai Deepak under instructions submits that Mr. Rajagopal Satish is willing to appear before the TDSAT tomorrow i.e., 18th April, 2023 and tender a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as security. However, the Respondent is not agreeable to the said amount. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the Respondent that documents on record show that the Petitioners admit that Rs.70 lacs is owed to the Respondent, and the said amount ought to be deposited by the Petitioners.
8. Issue notice on the questions of law raised as to the powers of TDSAT.
9. No interim order is being granted as the Court has queried the Petitioner No.1's Director, who is appearing online, who has confirmed that the business of Petitioner No.1 is currently not running. As per him, the HDFC account which is attached by the TDSAT also has a minus Rs.57 lakhs as balance as the Petitioners had availed loans from the HDFC Bank.
10. Clearly, the account statement submitted by the Petitioner itself to the Respondent which has been shown by the Counsel shows that there is an admission of approximately Rs.70 lakhs being due. The Petitioners are unable to furnish any security whatsoever. In these circumstances, the prayer for interim relief is rejected.
11. CM APPL. 18266/2023 is disposed of.
12. Let counter affidavit be filed within six weeks.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 4727/2023 Page 3 of 4 Signing Date:19.04.2023 12:50:3813. Rejoinder be filed within four weeks, thereafter.
14. List on 26th September, 2023.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
APRIL 17, 2023 Rahul/SK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 4727/2023 Page 4 of 4 Signing Date:19.04.2023 12:50:38