Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 21
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ram Krishna Gautam, Member
Den New Broad Communication Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sahara India TV Network – Respondent
Broadcasting Petition No. 487 of 2014 | M.A. No. 458 of 2022
Important Points
Subject
Telecom and Broadcasting - Placement Fee Dispute
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Burden of Proof - Civil proceedings - Initial onus on plaintiff to prove case, shifts upon discharge; plaintiff cannot rely on defendant’s weakness - Burden never shifts, onus may shift continuously - Evidence must stand on its own. (Paras 9-10)
(C) Pleadings - Verification mandatory; reply unsigned and with unauthorized affidavit from unrelated entity defective - No evidence where examination-in-chief uncross-examined and no substitution. (Paras 12-13)
Facts of the case:
MSO providing cable services claimed outstanding placement fees for carrying broadcaster’s channels on specified frequencies under prior and subsequent agreements. Demands unmet despite assurances. Broadcaster denied agreement execution; distributor defaulted. Tribunal decreed joint and several liability.
Findings of Court:
Principal sum of Rs. 44,12,627/- payable jointly and severally by respondents, with simple pendente lite and future interest @ 9% p.a. from petition date till payment, within two months.
Issues: (i) Maintainability; (ii) Reply conformity with CPC; (iii) Reply authorization; (iv) Agreement existence; (v) Agreements binding; (vi) Liability for sum with interest; (vii) Other relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Agreements binding via conduct, prior dealings, and unchallenged documents; defective reply/evidence leaves petitioner’s case unrebutted; civil standard met by preponderance of probabilities.
Result: Petition allowed; decree passed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Vibhav Srivastava, Ms Aashi Arora, Ms Rhea Yadav, Ms. Manika Priyadarshini
For the Respondents: Mr Gautam Awasthi, Mr Sahil Sharma, Mr. Devanshu Yadav
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim for outstanding placement fees under agreements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondent's denial of agreement and procedural objections. (Para 5) |
| 3. evidence filed by parties and ex-parte against respondent 2. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. preponderance of probabilities governs civil proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. petition maintainable before the tribunal. (Para 11) |
| 6. respondent's reply defective due to improper verification. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. agreements binding despite missing signature via conduct. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 8. outstanding dues proved, decree against both respondents. (Para 17) |
| 9. 9% simple interest awarded as just and fair. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
1. This Petition, under Section 14 read with Section 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (As Amended Upto date) (hereinafter referred to as ‘TRAI Act’) has been filed with a prayer of decree with regard to placement fee to the Petitioner in the tune of Rs. 44,12,627/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Seven Only), being the outstanding Placement fees, due and payable by Respondents, to the Petitioner, alongwith interest, pendente lite and future @18% per annum.
2. In brief, Petition contends that Petitioner is carrying on Multi System Operation (MSO) business as a Cable Television Service provider, duly registered, under the provisions of Section 3, of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, hereinafter referred to as Cable Television Act.
3. Respondent No.1, is a Broadcaster, as per TRAI Regulation, and has been distributing satellite channels – Sahara One & Filmy, under the name and title, through Respondent No.2, who is distributor of Sahara. Petitioner was already placing the channel, under the previous agreement, for the year 2011-2012 and on the assurance of renewal, continued the placement of Channels – Sahara One & Filmy, on the frequency E-5 of Prime band and frequency S-19 of S-band respectively and later on 20.03.2013, entered into an agreement with the Respondents. This Agreement, dated 20.03.2013, is Annexure P-1 to Petition. The Petitioner raised the demand of Placement Charges to Respondent in accordance with above agreement. The copy of this ledger is Annexure P-2 to Petition. Inspite of repeated demand and assurance, no clearance of outstanding amount, due and payable by Respondent, to Petitioner was made. A letter, dated 11.03.2014, was written by Petitioner to Respondent, demanding therein, the outstanding placement fee, payable by Respondent, to the Petitioner. But, Respondent neither replied, nor made the payment of outstanding amount. This letter, dated 11.03.2014, is Annexure P-3 to Petition. Respondents had made defaults in making payments for the Placement Charges, for the services of placing Sahara One & Filmy Channels by Petitioner, resulting the outstanding liability of the Respondents in the tune of Rs. 44,12,627/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Seven Only) wherein, the outstanding amount for the month of December, 2011, under previous Agreement, is also included. Hence, above outstanding amount, alongwith interest @18% per annum, is to be paid to Petitioner by Respondents. The erstwhile agreement, dated 01.06.2011, entered in between, for previous period is Annexure P-4 to Petition.
4. Respondents herein, are Broadcaster and its distributor respectively, and have been distributing satellite channels – Sahara one & Filmy, which was being placed, under previous agreement for the year 2011- 2012 by Petitioner, and was continued to be placed at above frequencies, with an assurance of renewal, continuation of Placement Channels, which was got executed on 20.03.2013, and the total outstanding consideration of Placement Charge of Sahara One & Filmy Channels, accrued in the tune of Rs. 44,12,627/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Seven Only), for which, repeated request was made, but of no avail. Hence, a caus
