Telecom Disputes Settlement Tribunal
Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd. & Anr vs Yash Broadcasting Industries Pvt. Ltd on 1 April, 2026
1
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
Dated 1st April 2026
Broadcasting Petition No. 424 of 2017
Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited & Anr ...Petitioner
Vs.
Yash Broadcasting Industries Private Limited ...Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER
For Petitioner : Mr. Nasir Husain, Advocate
For Respondent : None
JUDGMENT
1. The present Petition, under Section 14A (1) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "TRAI Act") read with Section 14 (a) (ii) of the TRAI Act, has been filed by Petitioner - Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited and another against Respondent - Yash Broadcasting Industries Private Limited through its authorised representative, for a decree of placement charges, amounting to Rs. 1,92,23,565/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Two Lakhs 2 Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Five Only) as on 31.03.2017, with a further interest @ 18% per annum over it.
2. In brief, contention of Petition is that Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited is a public limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a cable television service provider, duly registered under the provisions of Section 3 of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. It is engaged in the business of MSO i.e., business of distribution of television channels including Analog/ Digital in view of license to operate as a Cable Operator under the Regulation Act, 1995.
3. Petition No. 2 Hathway Digital Private Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary company of Petitioner No.1, engaged in the retransmitting of the signals of Cable TV to its various operators on Pan India basis. The Cable TV business of the Petitioner No. 1 has been assigned to Petitioner No. 2 w.e.f. 01.04.2017, due to internal restructuring of the Petitioner No. 1 Company.
3
4. Respondent, Yash Broadcasting Industries Private Limited, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its registered Office at Salarpurai Towers, Bangalore, and is a Broadcaster/ Channel Provider, distributing channel "Janasri News"
(Kannada News Channel). Respondent was desirous of placing its channel on Petitioner's network, hence, approached it to ensure that the channel gets maximum viewership to the viewers. A Channel Placement Agreement, dated 15.09.2014, was entered in between and in lieu of placing the said channel, Respondent was to pay Rs. 1,55,74,938/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Five Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Eight only) per year, commencing from 18.02.2014 to 17.02.2015, exclusive of service tax @ 12.36% or as may be applicable from time to time. This was an agreement for the areas/ territories of Bangalore and Mysore. This placement agreement, entered in between, dated 15.09.2014, is Annexure P-1 to Petition. Thereafter, both parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 26.08.2015 with an agreed term, that in lieu of placing the said channel, Respondent would pay an amount of Rs. 1,55,74,938/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Five Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Eight Only), excluding taxes, payable monthly in 4 advance with a service tax @ 12.36% or as may be applicable from time to time. This MOU was valid for a period of one year i.e., from 18.02.2015 to 17.02.2016, and this was again for the area of Bangalore and Mysore. It is Annexure P-2 to Petition.
5. Under Memorandum of Understanding, dated 24.03.2017, for a period of 18.02.2017 to 31.03.2018, with placement charge of Rs. 1,55,74,938/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Five Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Eight Only) and service tax @ 15% payable monthly in advance for the territory of Karnataka was got entered and the same is Annexure P-3 to Petition.
6. Petitioner raised invoices, on the Respondent, in view of those understandings, which were duly received by Respondent, without any protest or demur. But, part payments were being made, since the very inception by the Respondent, as a regular and chronic defaulter, in discharging of its liabilities. The invoices raised were annexed with Petition as Annexure P-4 (Colly).
5
7. The Petitioner maintains Statement of Accounts in the usual and ordinary course of business. A copy of which, is annexed as Annexure P-5 to Petition.
8. The Respondent, being a defaulter, in fulfilling its liabilities, avoided to clear the outstanding dues, of the Petitioner towards Channel placement dues, despite regular request, follow ups and reminders. But, except false assurance, for making payment very soon, dues were not cleared. Whereas, Petitioner fulfilled its obligation, in full compliance and commitments, by placing channel at desired frequencies. Hence, Petitioner was constrained to issue a notice, dated 31.08.2016, demanding outstanding placement dues in the tune of Rs. 1,97,94,906/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Seven Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Nine Hundred Six Only). This notice is Annexure P-6 to Petition. This was of no response. Hence, another demand notice, dated 16.01.2017, with demand of Rs. 1,91,36,723/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety One Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Three Only) was issued and owing to failure, channel was deactivated/ switched off by the Petitioner, w.e.f. 01.12.2016. This notice is Annexure P-7 to Petition.
6
9. Subsequently, Respondent made a transfer of an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Ten Lakhs Only) towards part payment in the account of the Petitioner. But, there was some criminal case against Respondent, wherein instruction by investigating authority was for making payment back of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Ten Lakhs Only) in favour of Monetary Advisory, through demand draft bearing No. 295863 dated 16.05.2017 and it was made so. The document is Annexure P-8 (Colly). Again, a notice, dated 09,10.2017, to Respondent, demanding Rs. 1,92,23,565/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Five Only), due as on 31.03.2017, Annexure P-9 (Colly) was got issued, but of no avail.
10. Hence, a cause of action, within territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal, within limitation period, had arisen. Hence, this Petition, with above prayer, got filed against Respondent.
11. Reply by Mr. Ranga Reddy, Chief Operating Officer of the Respondent Company got filed with this contention that Petitioner himself had not complied, with terms and conditions stipulated in the Agreement, so 7 far as carrying the channel of the Respondent. Rather, it was contumaciously claimed for the amount which it has paid to the law enforcement agencies on the basis of complaint and with the same, the Respondent has no relation whatsoever. Respondent's Channel was not operational due to financial constraints and it was not available in any platform. Hence, there was no occasion for the Respondent to pay for the period when the channel itself was not available. Parties mutually decided to enter into the arrangement for there mutual business benefits. Agreement/ MoU's has been signed for mutual benefits. However, the Channel of the Respondent, was not in operation, much before the signing of MoU dated 24.03.2017 due to the financial and logistical constraints. No such invoices were ever raised, nor have been put on record. No violation by Respondent was there, nor claimed amount was ever due. Hence, this Petition be got dismissed.
12. Replication cum rejoinder by Petitioner, with the reiteration of contention of Petition and denial of contention of reply was got filed. 8
13. On the basis of pleadings of both sides, Court of Registrar framed following two issues on 23.08.2018:
(i) Whether petitioner is entitled for amount alongwith interest from respondent, as claimed in the petition?
(ii) Whether the parties have complied with the terms and conditions of the MoU/ Agreement executed between them?
14. Affidavit evidence of Petitioner alongwith Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act of Sunil Kukreja got filed. Thenafter, none appeared for Respondent. After all exercise and service, none appeared to contest for Respondent. Hence, order dated 04.10.2024 was passed for ex-parte proceeding. Matter proceeded ex-parte, wherein, written submission by Petitioner got filed.
15. Heard argument of Learned Counsel for Petitioner and gone through materials placed on record.
16. Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh - AIR 2006 SC 1971 has propounded that onus to prove a fact is on the person who asserts it. Under Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, initial onus is 9 always on the plaintiff to prove his case and if he discharges, the onus shifts to defendant. It has further been propounded in Premlata Vs. Arhant Kumar Jain- AIR 1976 SC 626 that where both parties have already produced whatever evidence they had, the question of burden of proof seizes to have any importance. But while appreciating the question of burden of proof and misplacing the burden of proof on a particular party and recording of findings in a particular way will definitely vitiate the judgment. The old principle propounded by Privy Council in Lakshman Vs. Venkateswarloo - AIR 1949 PC 278 still holds good that burden of proof on the pleadings never shifts, it always remains constant. Factually proving of a case in his favour is cost upon plaintiff when he fulfils, onus shifts over defendants to adduce rebutting evidence to meet the case made out by plaintiff. Onus may again shift to plaintiff. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of J&K Vs. Hindustan Forest Co. (2006) 12 SCC 198 has propounded that the plaintiff cannot obviously take advantage of the weakness of defendant. The plaintiff must stand upon evidence adduced by him. Though unlike a criminal case, in civil cases there is no mandate for proving fact beyond reasonable doubt, but even preponderance of probabilities may serve as a good basis of decision, as was 10 propounded in M. Krishnan Vs Vijay Singh- 2001 CrLJ 4705. Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghvamma Vs. A Cherry Chamma - AIR 1964 SC 136 has propounded that burden and onus of proof, are two different things. Burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the facts and it never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such shifting of onus is a continuous process in evaluation of evidence. In all civil cases, required degree of proof is preponderance of probabilities.
17. Issue Nos. 1 and 2:
Both issues are related to each other and disposal of one will require disposal of two, to be together. Hence, both of these issues are being decided together.
18. Plaint/ Petition is with specific contention of Petitioner, being MSO and Respondent, being Broadcaster, have entered in channel placement agreement. This fact has not been denied in the reply filed by Respondent, except the non-compliance by Petitioner itself and no raising of invoices by Petitioner. Whereas, invoices have been annexed with Petition. The Statement of Account, maintained by Petitioner in its usual course of business, has been annexed with Petition. This fact 11 has been reiterated in the affidavit, filed in support of Petition. The same is very well there in the affidavit filed in evidence by Petitioner. Those have been proved by witness. The copy of Board of Resolution has been said to be there in the affidavit, which has been proved as Exhibit - A (Colly). Copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.09.2014 has been proved an exhibited as Exhibit - PW 1/1. The other Memorandum dated 26.08.2015 is Exhibit - PW 1/2. The third Memorandum dated 24.03.2017 is Exhibit - PW 1/3. Copies of invoices sent to the Respondent is Exhibit - PW 1/4 (Colly). Copy of Statement of Account has been proved as Exhibit - PW 1/5. Notice dated 31.08.2016 is Exhibit - PW 1/6. Hence, the entire contention has been proved by way of uncontroverted affidavit. As against it, there is no IOTA of evidence by Respondent. The relationship, services, part payment, have not been disputed. Hence, the very contention of Petition has been fully proved by evidence placed by Petitioner on record. Hence, the dues towards placement charge, claimed as above, as on above date is fully proved. Both of issues are being decided in favour of Petitioner.
12
19. The Tribunal in previously decided Judgments, and considering the physical scenario had always awarded a simple interest @ 9% per annum over the Principle amount. Accordingly, the above claimed amount is to be awarded with above interest.
20. On the basis of above discussions, this Petition merits for its decree of award of Rs. 1,92,23,565/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five Only) towards placement charge, to be paid by Respondent to Petitioner, with additional payment of Simple Interest @ 9% per annum, due from 31.03.2017 till actual date of payment, pendente lite and future to Petitioner.
ORDER The Petition is being allowed. Respondent Yash Broadcasting Industries Private Limited, is being directed to make deposit of Rs. 1,92,23,565/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five Only) plus pendente lite and future Simple Interest @ 9% per annum over it from 31.03.2017 till actual 13 payment, within two months from the date of Judgment, in the Tribunal, for making payment to Petitioner. Failing which same maybe realised as per execution of decree.
Formal order / decree be got prepared by office, accordingly.
............................
(Justice Ram Krishna Gautam) Member 01.04.2026 /BN/