Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Assistive Netspeed Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs Star India Pvt Ltd

Telecom Disputes Settlement And Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 31 May 2024 · Citation: (2024) 05 TDSAT CK 0045

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, Chairperson · Subodh Kumar Gupta, Member
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 — Regulation15(2)
CASE NUMBER
Broadcasting Petition No. 100 Of 2024 With Misc Application No. 158, 166, 197 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 304 words
1.

Having heard the counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that now the auditor has given a report under regulation 15(2) of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services  Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 (for short- Regulations of 2017) along with schedule X.

2.

Looking to the said audit report, especially page no.283, prima facie, there are gross violations by this petitioner. We have also been taken by the respondent at page nos. 292, 237 and 557 also of this petition. Prima facie, looking to this audit report under Regulation 15(2) of the Regulations of 2017, we see no reason to direct the respondent for re-connection of supply of signals at this stage. There is no prima facie case in favour of this petitioner. Balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioner and no irreparable loss will be caused to this petitioner if the same, as prayed for, is not granted.

3.

Prima facie, the audit report given under Regulation 15(2) of  the Regulations of 2017 has pointed out several illegalities on part of the petitioner. There is  retransmission of the signals of the petitioner through third party App, has also not been disclosed as mentioned on page no. 292 that the petitioner is using the said third party App for retransmission of the signals of the petitioner.

4.

Prima facie, looking to the facts as pointed out on page nos. 283, 292,237, 557 of the memo of this petition, we see no reason to grant any interim relief to this petitioner.

5.

The matter is already adjourned for further hearing on 2.7.2024.

6.

Meanwhile, if any, affidavit is to be filed by parties to this litigation, they are permitted to file the same.

7.

The matter is adjourned to 2.7.2024.