Telecom Disputes Settlement Tribunal
Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. ... on 5 February, 2016
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
Dated 5th February 2016
Broadcasting Petition No. 14 of 2016
Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Vs.
Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. ...Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE DR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. BIPIN BIHARI SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER
For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Advocate
Mr. Rijul Taneja, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate
Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner, SUN Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. (SUN) is a broadcaster of TV channels. The respondent, Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. (Asianet) is the distributor of the petitioner's signals on the basis of an interconnect agreement executed by the two sides.
2
SUN filed this petition agitating the grievance that Asianet had discontinued the supply of its signals on its network without any notice and in violation of the Regulations.
The petition was filed on 14.01.2016 but when it came up before the Tribunal on 15.01.2016, it was stated that the broadcast of channels was resumed on the respondent's network but their placements were changed causing much prejudice to the petitioner. Noticing thus the grievance of the broadcaster, the petition was adjourned to enable the counsel for the respondent to get proper instructions in the matter.
Thereafter, on behalf of SUN an affidavit was filed on 28.01.2016 and its reply was filed by the respondent on 29.01.2016. Parties were then heard on the petitioner's prayer for restoration of its three channels, namely, Surya, Kiran TV and Surya Music to their original placements.
It is an admitted position that earlier the three channels, Surya, Kiran TV and Surya Music were at LCN 107, 144 and 146 respectively and after the hiatus of a few days when those were off air (according to the respondent, due to some technical glitches), the three channels are now being shown at LCN 648, 664 and
668. 3 Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, counsel for SUN strongly contended that the action of the respondent in changing the placements of the channels was in violation of the Regulations and the terms of the agreements and it was causing much prejudice to the petitioner.
Mr. Navin Chawla, counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there was no violation of any Regulations or the terms of agreement in shifting the positions of the three channels and the respondent was fully entitled to place the channels as and where it suited its interests.
Some of the relevant facts that are not in dispute are as follows. The two sides have been in interconnect relationship for the past several years. In the past, the agreements between the two sides were based on mutual negotiations and the petitioner's three channels were consistently placed at LCN 107 (Surya), 144 (Kiran TV) and 146 (Surya Music). The parties executed a fresh agreement on 31.12.2015. The agreement comes into effect from 01.01.2016 and it covers the State of Kerela that came under the DAS regime in Phase-III (i.e. on 01.01.2016). The present agreement, unlike the previous agreements, is based on the petitioner's RIO. It is well known that a distributor accepts the RIO based agreement only as a measure of last resort. 4
Mr. Malhotra submitted that the three channels, Surya, Kiran TV and Surya Music belong to "GEC (Malayalam)", "Movies (Malayalam)" and "Music (Malayalam)" genres respectively and the respondent was legally obliged to put them in the genres to which each of them belonged. He further submitted that at LCN 107, 144 and 146, the three channels were rightly placed in their respective genres but at LCN 648, 664 and 668, those channels are placed among channels which do not belong to their respective genres.
Mr. Chawla submitted that earlier the three channels were put in Malayalam Package-I and now the three channels are put in Malayalam Package- II, among all the Malayalam language channels and the only grouse of the petitioner is that it has been assigned distant numbers.
The earlier groupings of channels and the present groupings of channels were shown to us. We find that in the earlier groupings, Surya which is stated to be a "GEC (Malayalam)" channel, had a neighborhood that had a number of GEC channels. In its present grouping, the number of GEC channels in its neighborhood has become relatively fewer. Mr. Chawla sought to justify the change by stating that it was open to the respondent to make language based groupings rather than content based groupings and all the three channels of the petitioner's continued to be in the Malayalam group. 5
Mr.Malhotra in support of the submission that a channel must be placed in the genre to which it belongs, invited our attention to Regulation 5[14(A)], [14(B)] and [14(C)] of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) (First Amendment) Regulations 2012. The Regulations are as under:
"14(A) Every broadcaster shall declare the genre of its channels and such genre shall be either News and Current Affairs or Infotainment or Sports or Kids or Music or Lifestyle or Movies or Religious or Devotional or General Entertainment (Hindi) or General Entertainment (English) or General Entertainment (regional language). 14(B) The multi system operator shall place the channels of a broadcaster in the genre declared by such broadcaster. 14(C) No broadcaster shall demand from the multi-system operator to assign a particular number of its channels."
The Regulations relied upon by Mr. Malhotra support the legal proposition advanced by him and prima facie, it is difficult to accept Mr. Chawla's submission that the distributor is free to make linguistically based groupings of channels regardless of the genres to which those channels belong.
The difficulty, however, is that there is nothing to show that SUN made the declaration regarding the genres of the three channels to the distributor at the time of execution of the agreement.
6
In the interconnect agreement executed by the two sides there is no mention of the genre to which each of the three channels belong. The petitioner's RIO that forms the basis of the agreement is also silent as regards the genres of the channels.
Mr. Malhotra, however, relied upon the Return dated 23.03.2015 submitted by the petitioner before TRAI in terms of clause 4 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Second Tariff) (Fourteenth Amendment) Order 2015. In the Return, of course, the three channels are shown to belong to the genres as stated before us but there is nothing to indicate that a copy of the Return was given to the respondent or it was in any other way made aware of the genres to which the three channels belong. Having thus failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 5[14(A)], the petitioner cannot insist on the enforcement of sub-regulation 14(B) of Regulation 5.
Mr. Malhotra then invited our attention to a term in the interconnect agreement which stipulates that the subscriber operator would ensure that no subscribed channel would be disadvantaged or otherwise treated less favourably with respect to the competing channels on a genre basis. Whether or not the change in placement has caused any disadvantage or amounts to inferior 7 treatment with respect to competing channels on a genre basis is a pure question of fact which can be gone into only after evidences are led by the two sides.
At this stage, on hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no case is made out for any direction to the respondent to restore the LCN placements of the petitioner's three channels by way of an interim order. The prayer for interim relief is accordingly rejected.
The respondent is directed to file its reply within three weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the reply.
Put up before the Registrar's court on 17.03.2016 for getting the pleadings completed, framing of issues and taking evidences.
....................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ..........................
(Kuldip Singh) Member ..........................
(B.B. Srivastava) Member sks 8 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 2016 Broadcasting Petition No. 14 of 2016 Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. ...Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE DR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER HON'BLE MR. BIPIN BIHARI SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Advocate Mr. Rijul Taneja, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Advocate ORDER The petitioner, SUN Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. (SUN) is a broadcaster of TV channels. The respondent, Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. (Asianet) is the distributor of the petitioner's signals on the basis of an interconnect agreement executed by the two sides. 9
SUN filed this petition agitating the grievance that Asianet had discontinued the supply of its signals on its network without any notice and in violation of the Regulations.
The petition was filed on 14.01.2016 but when it came up before the Tribunal on 15.01.2016, it was stated that the broadcast of channels was resumed on the respondent's network but their placements were changed causing much prejudice to the petitioner. Noticing thus the grievance of the broadcaster, the petition was adjourned to enable the counsel for the respondent to get proper instructions in the matter.
Thereafter, on behalf of SUN an affidavit was filed on 28.01.2016 and its reply was filed by the respondent on 29.01.2016. Parties were then heard on the petitioner's prayer for restoration of its three channels, namely, Surya, Kiran TV and Surya Music to their original placements.
It is an admitted position that earlier the three channels, Surya, Kiran TV and Surya Music were at LCN 107, 144 and 146 respectively and after the hiatus of a few days when those were off air (according to the respondent, due to some technical glitches), the three channels are now being shown at LCN 648, 664 and
668. 10
Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, counsel for SUN strongly contended that the action of the respondent in changing the placements of the channels was in violation of the Regulations and the terms of the agreements and it was causing much prejudice to the petitioner.
Mr. Navin Chawla, counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there was no violation of any Regulations or the terms of agreement in shifting the positions of the three channels and the respondent was fully entitled to place the channels as and where it suited its interests.
Some of the relevant facts that are not in dispute are as follows. The two sides have been in interconnect relationship for the past several years. In the past, the agreements between the two sides were based on mutual negotiations and the petitioner's three channels were consistently placed at LCN 107 (Surya), 144 (Kiran TV) and 146 (Surya Music). The parties executed a fresh agreement on 31.12.2015. The agreement comes into effect from 01.01.2016 and it covers the State of Kerela that came under the DAS regime in Phase-III (i.e. on 01.01.2016). The present agreement, unlike the previous agreements, is based on the petitioner's RIO. It is well known that a distributor accepts the RIO based agreement only as a measure of last resort. 11
Mr. Malhotra submitted that the three channels, Surya, Kiran TV and Surya Music belong to "GEC (Malayalam)", "Movies (Malayalam)" and "Music (Malayalam)" genres respectively and the respondent was legally obliged to put them in the genres to which each of them belonged. He further submitted that at LCN 107, 144 and 146, the three channels were rightly placed in their respective genres but at LCN 648, 664 and 668, those channels are placed among channels which do not belong to their respective genres.
Mr. Chawla submitted that earlier the three channels were put in Malayalam Package-I and now the three channels are put in Malayalam Package- II, among all the Malayalam language channels and the only grouse of the petitioner is that it has been assigned distant numbers.
The earlier groupings of channels and the present groupings of channels were shown to us. We find that in the earlier groupings, Surya which is stated to be a "GEC (Malayalam)" channel, had a neighborhood that had a number of GEC channels. In its present grouping, the number of GEC channels in its neighborhood has become relatively fewer. Mr. Chawla sought to justify the change by stating that it was open to the respondent to make language based groupings rather than content based groupings and all the three channels of the petitioner's continued to be in the Malayalam group. 12
Mr.Malhotra in support of the submission that a channel must be placed in the genre to which it belongs, invited our attention to Regulation 5[14(A)], [14(B)] and [14(C)] of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) (First Amendment) Regulations 2012. The Regulations are as under:
"14(A) Every broadcaster shall declare the genre of its channels and such genre shall be either News and Current Affairs or Infotainment or Sports or Kids or Music or Lifestyle or Movies or Religious or Devotional or General Entertainment (Hindi) or General Entertainment (English) or General Entertainment (regional language). 14(B) The multi system operator shall place the channels of a broadcaster in the genre declared by such broadcaster. 14(C) No broadcaster shall demand from the multi-system operator to assign a particular number of its channels."
The Regulations relied upon by Mr. Malhotra support the legal proposition advanced by him and prima facie, it is difficult to accept Mr. Chawla's submission that the distributor is free to make linguistically based groupings of channels regardless of the genres to which those channels belong.
The difficulty, however, is that there is nothing to show that SUN made the declaration regarding the genres of the three channels to the distributor at the time of execution of the agreement.
13
In the interconnect agreement executed by the two sides there is no mention of the genre to which each of the three channels belong. The petitioner's RIO that forms the basis of the agreement is also silent as regards the genres of the channels.
Mr. Malhotra, however, relied upon the Return dated 23.03.2015 submitted by the petitioner before TRAI in terms of clause 4 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Second Tariff) (Fourteenth Amendment) Order 2015. In the Return, of course, the three channels are shown to belong to the genres as stated before us but there is nothing to indicate that a copy of the Return was given to the respondent or it was in any other way made aware of the genres to which the three channels belong. Having thus failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 5[14(A)], the petitioner cannot insist on the enforcement of sub-regulation 14(B) of Regulation 5.
Mr. Malhotra then invited our attention to a term in the interconnect agreement which stipulates that the subscriber operator would ensure that no subscribed channel would be disadvantaged or otherwise treated less favourably with respect to the competing channels on a genre basis. Whether or not the change in placement has caused any disadvantage or amounts to inferior 14 treatment with respect to competing channels on a genre basis is a pure question of fact which can be gone into only after evidences are led by the two sides.
At this stage, on hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no case is made out for any direction to the respondent to restore the LCN placements of the petitioner's three channels by way of an interim order. The prayer for interim relief is accordingly rejected.
The respondent is directed to file its reply within three weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the reply.
Put up before the Registrar's court on 17.03.2016 for getting the pleadings completed, framing of issues and taking evidences.
....................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ..........................
(Kuldip Singh) Member ..........................
(B.B. Srivastava) Member sks 15 16 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 1st February 2016 Broadcasting Petition No. 14 of 2016 Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. ... Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE DR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.B. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Advocate Mr. Rijul Taneja, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Advocate ORDER Heard. Order reserved.
....................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ..........................
(Kuldip Singh) Member ..........................
(B.B. Srivastava) Member /NC/ 17 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 29th January 2016 Broadcasting Petition No. 14 of 2016 Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. ... Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE DR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.B. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Advocate ORDER Mr. Navin Chawla, counsel for the respondent files an affidavit in response to the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Let it be taken on record.
Put up under the same head on 01.02.2016.
....................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson .......................... (Kuldip Singh) Member .......................... (B.B. Srivastava) Member /NS/ 18 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 27th January 2016 Broadcasting Petition No. 14 of 2016 Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. ... Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE DR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.B. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Advocate ORDER Mr. Malhotra files an Affidavit, a copy of which was given to the counsel for the respondent on Monday evening.
As requested by Mr. Chawla, put up under the same head on 29.1.2016.
.......................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ............................. (Kuldip Singh) Member ............................. (B.B. Srivastava) 19 Member /NC/ 20 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 15th January 2016 Broadcasting Petition No. 14 of 2016 Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. ... Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE DR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.B. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER For Petitioner : Mr. Gopal Jain, Senior Advocate Mr. Nittin Bhatia, Advocate Ms. Stephanie V Sonawane, Advocate Mr. Aditya, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Advocate ORDER This petition was filed making the grievance that the respondent has discontinued the distribution of the petitioner's signals on its network without any notice and in violation of the regulations.21
To-day when the case is called out, Mr.Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner accepts that after filing of the petition the respondent has resumed showing the petitioner's channels on its network.
He, however, submits that the placement of the channels have been changed to the great disadvantage of the petitioner. For instance, he submitted that the petitioner's channel called 'Surya', which was earlier at LCN-107, was shifted to LCN-118 and finally to LCN-648; similarly, the channel Sun that was earlier at LCN-200, has been shifted to LCN-210.
Ms.Shirin Khajuria, learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that as on date there is no subsisting placement agreement between the two sides. She further states that the displacements, if any, of the channels are made in accordance with the regulations.
Put up under the same head on 27/01/2016 to enable counsel for the respondent to take proper instructions and, if so advised, to file a brief reply on the issue of displacements of channels.
.......................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ............................. (Kuldip Singh) Member .............................22
(B.B. Srivastava) Member dbc 23 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 4th January 2016 Petition No. 1 of 2016 (With M.A No. 1 of 2016) Videocon Telecommunications Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India ... Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE MR. B.B. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER For Petitioners : Mr. Meet Malhotra, Senior Advocate Mr. Nakul Mohta, Advocate Ms. Shikha Sarin, Advocate Mr. Ravi S. S. Chauhan, Advocate Ms. Palak Singh, Advocate For Respondent : None ORDER This case is taken up on an urgent mentioning made by Mr. Meet Malhotra, senior advocate appearing for the petitioner.
Heard Mr. Malhotra.
No one appears on behalf of Union of India despite service of notice.
Issue notice to the DoT.24
The petitioner is directed to file an additional copy of the petition in course of the day, which will go alongwith the notice.
Put up under the same head on 14.01.2016.
Until then, the invocation of the bank guarantees vide letters dated 28.12.2015(copies at pages 23 and 26 respectively) shall remain stayed. The respondent shall not receive any money from the bank in pursuance of the invocation of the bank guarantees.
Dasti in addition.
.......................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson .............................
(B.B. Srivastava) Member /NC/ 25 26 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 3rd December, 2015 Petition No.646 of 2015 Idea Cellular Ltd. (Andhra Padesh) ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India ... Respondent Petition No.647 of 2015 Idea Cellular Ltd. (Karnataka) ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India ... Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE DR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.B. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER For Petitioners : Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Advocate Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate 27 ORDER Admit.
Mr. Shamshery accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-UOI. He is directed to file the reply within four weeks from today; rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the reply.
In so far as the petitioner's prayer for interim relief is concerned, put up under the head "for orders" on 23.12.2015 to enable Mr. Shamshery to get instructions and if so advised to file a brief reply germane to the issue of interim relief.
Until that date, the respondent shall not take any coercive measure for realization of the impugned demand.
..................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ....................
(Kuldip Singh) Member ..........................
(B.B. Srivastava) Member /NC/ 28 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 2nd December, 2015 Petition No.426 of 2015 Reliance Communications Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India ... Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE DR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.B. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER For Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Sachin, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Advocate ORDER Mr. Santosh Sachin states that in terms of the order dated 12.10.2015, the authorities have started re-examination of the Customer Application Forms(CAFs), but the exercise is yet to be completed. Mr. Vikas Malik produces a copy of the status report, which may be taken on record.29
As jointly requested, put up under the same head on 27.1.2016.
It is expected that in the meanwhile, the re-examination of the CAFs will be completed.
..................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ....................
(Kuldip Singh) Member .......................... (B.B. Srivastava) Member /NC/ 30 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 12th October, 2015 Petition No.426 of 2015 Reliance Communications Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India ... Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE MR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.B. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER For Petitioners : Mr. Navin Chawla,Advocate Mr. Santosh Sachin, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Advocate Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate ORDER Put up under the same head on 2.12.2015.
In the meanwhile, Mr. Vikas Malik, advocate assisting Mr. Shamshery, representing the Union of India, Mr. Santosh Sachin, counsel representing the petitioner alongwith an officer from the TERM Cell(Punjab) and an officer from the petitioner's office will re-examine all the Customer Application Forms(CAFs) 31 that are found to incompatible and see if any, or some of them can be passed as compatible with the guidelines.
The exercise is intended to segregate all the CAFs that according to the respondent are definitely not compatible and on which the Tribunal will hear the parties.
..................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ....................
(Kuldip Singh) Member .......................... (B.B. Srivastava) Member /NC/ 32 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 7th October, 2015 Petition No.426 of 2015 Reliance Communications Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India ... Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE MR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.B. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER For Petitioners : Mr. Navin Chawla,Advocate Mrs Manali Singhal, Advocate Mr. Santosh Sachin, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Advocate Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate ORDER Put up under the same head on 12.10.2015.
..................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ....................
(Kuldip Singh) Member .......................... (B.B. Srivastava) Member /NS/ 33 34 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 16th September, 2015 Petition No.426 of 2015 Reliance Communications Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India ... Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE MR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.B. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER For Petitioners : Mr.Navin Chawla,Advocate Mr. Santosh Sachin, Advocate for Mrs Manali Singhal, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Aparajita Sharma,Advocate for Mr.S.S. Shamshery, Advocate ORDER As requested by Mr. Chawla, put up under the same heading on 7.10.2015.
..................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ....................
(Kuldip Singh) Member .......................... (B.B. Srivastava) Member /pkb/ 35 36 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 25th August, 2015 Petition No.426 of 2015 Reliance Communications Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India ... Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE MR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER For Petitioners : Mr.Navin Chawla,Advocate Mr. Santosh Sachin, Advocate for Mrs Manali Singhal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.S. Shamshery, Advocate Ms. Aparajita Sharma,Advocate ORDER In terms of the previous order, Mr. Shamshery, counsel for UOI, produces before us copies of the Customer Application Forms, which the Term Cell found anomalous and suffering from various irregularities.37
Learned counsel also submitted before us a chart in which the anomalies in the different application forms are elucidated.
Copies of the CAFs and the chart are also given to Mr. Chawla, counsel for the petitioner. He needs some time to look into those documents.
As requested by Mr. Chawla, put under the same heading on 16.9.2015.
..................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ....................
(Kuldip Singh) Member /NC/ 38 Put up under the same heading on 14.8.2015 to enable Mr. Banerjee, counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India to get proper instructions in the matter.
Until then, respondent is restrained from invoking the bank guarantee for realization of their demand as stated in the letter dated 23.7.2015.
It is made clear that this ad interim order is an ad hoc arrangement and subject to the submissions made on behalf of the Union of India on the next date.
..................
(Aftab Alam) Chairperson ....................
(Kuldip Singh) Member ........................
(B.B. Srivastava) Member /NS/ 39 Issue notice; dasti, in addition.
Reply may be filed within three weeks from the date of service of the notice; rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the reply.
Put up before the Registrar's court on 21.05.2015 for getting the pleadings completed, framing of issues and if the parties concur, taking evidences etc. 40