In civil recovery proceedings, if the petitioner proves the existence of an agreement and outstanding dues through uncontroverted documentary evidence, the burden shifts to the respondent to rebut the claim; failing which, the claim is established based on the preponderance of probabilities.

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 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.

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 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