Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Rewari Digital Network – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tdsat order regarding charges. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. dispute over audit report assumptions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. interim arrangements by tdsat. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. limited interference in interim orders. (Para 11) |
ORDER
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
CM APPL. 9032/2021 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
WP(C) 2983/2021 & CM APPL. 9031/2021 (for stay)
3. The Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 5th February 2021, passed by Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, "TDSAT") in Broadcasting Petition bearing no. BP/567/2020, vide which the TDSAT has directed that alternative calculations as to the charges for under reporting shall be submitted by the parties for arriving at a proper and just rate and an interim arrangement thereto.
4. The Petitioner is a Multi Systems Operator, which is operating in Rewari, Haryana. It has an arrangement with the broadcaster, Respondent No. 2 -Star India Private Limited, for availing of its signals for onwards distribution to its cable operators and consumers.
5. The
Interim orders by TDSAT can proceed based on audit reports unless substantive disputes are resolved, while higher courts maintain limited interference in such financial determinations.
In civil proceedings, petitioner bears onus to prove case by preponderance of probabilities; failure to provide valid evidence upholds respondent's audit-based demand.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017, and the authority of the Tri....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to rectifying jurisdictional errors or failure of justice; it does not extend to routine interference with interlocutory orders ....
The scope of review jurisdiction does not allow re-appreciation of facts, which must be conducted within the boundaries of established errors on the record.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
