CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Narnaul Cable Service Pvt Ltd vs Indiacast Media Distribution Pvt Ltd

Telecom Disputes Settlement And Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 22 October 2021 · Citation: (2021) 10 TDSAT CK 0039

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shiva Kirti Singh, Chairperson · Subodh Kumar Gupta, Member
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Interconnection Regulations 2017 — Regulation 11
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Broadcasting Petition No. 627 Of 2021
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

8 paragraphs · 355 words

Admit.  No notice need be issued as respondent has appeared on advance notice through Ms. Payal Kakra, Advocate.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent in respect of interim relief against the disconnection notice dated 1.10.2021.

The sole reason for the impugned notice is act of piracy alleged against the petitioner on account of the re-distribution of signals beyond the territory authorised by the agreement.  The petitioner has offered an explanation that a territory within State of Haryana only was mentioned in the agreement on account of mistake and petitioner did not care to read the agreement for several months and therefore, he has continued to redistribute the signals beyond the authorised territory which includes areas falling in the State of Rajasthan also. After the respondent came to know of the above act of the petitoner, they raised objections through emails and have also filed FIR. Petitioner has specifically requested for amendement of the agreement so as to enlarge the territory in the State of Haryana as also in some parts of Rajasthan. The respondent has taken a stand that an advance notice was required which was not given and areas can not be extended through an amendment so as to cover altogether another State or Union Territory.

Petitioner cannot continue to operate against the terms of the agreement and therefore he will be at liberty to approach the respondent and make a request so that his area of operation may be in accordance with Regulations particularly Regulation 11 and the interconnect agreement including any possible amendment thereto.  However, no interim relief can be granted so as to allow the petitioner to violate the agreement and Regulations at this stage.

Let reply be filed within four weeks, as prayed.  Rejoinder, if required, be filed by the next date.

Post the matter under the head "for directions" on 7.12.2021.

In the meantime, it will be open for the parties to negotiate and if possible, see that petitioner operates as per provisions of the agreement and the Regulations.

The outcome of the negotiations  may be brought on record before the next date.