Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 6
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MR. AFTAB ALAM, CJ, MR. KULDIP SINGH, J
Muthoot Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Petition No. 226(C) of 2011 | M.A.No.45 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Mr. Upender Thakur
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Radhalakshmi R.
The Tribunal determined jurisdiction over lessee-lessor disputes within regulatory frameworks and mandated adjustments for double payments on rental fees in broadcasting agreements.
Headnote:(A) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act - Jurisdiction issues surrounding lessee-lessor disputes and rental agreements. (Paras 12, 13, 31)
(B) Mandatory requirements in tender documents for collocation of FM transmission facilities with existing infrastructure. (Paras 6, 8)
(C) Principles of unilateral decision-making in setting rental fees and their implications on operational costs for service providers. (Paras 14, 15)
(D) Adjustment of rental fees to avoid double payment for interim and permanent setup. (Paras 26, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having been mandated by tender terms, contested the fairness and legality of the rental charged for the use of CTI, claiming it was arbitrary and excessive compared to market rates.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the charging rates were justified based on policy decisions and could not be deemed coercive. Adjustments for rent already paid twice for overlapping service periods were ordered.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the jurisdiction over lessee-lessor disputes, the relevant rental rates structured for different services, and the legality of double charging for facilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal reasoned that agreements were imposed due to regulatory requirements and mandated collocation, thus affirming jurisdiction. The defendant's charges were found appropriate, with adjustments for overpayment mandated based on previous rulings.
Result: The petition is allowed to the extent of adjusting rental charges for the overlapping service periods.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over rentals charged for licensed land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. operational requirements for transmission facilities. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. challenges against unilateral rental decisions. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 4. jurisdiction and policy framework governing disputes. (Para 13 , 24) |
| 5. adjustment of duplicate rental payments. (Para 26 , 30) |
JUDGMENT
Kuldip Singh:
The dispute in the present petition is with regard to the rentals charged by respondent no. 2 for the land licensed to the petitioner for Common Transmission Infrastructure (CTI) at Avadi, Chennai. The petitioner has also sought adjustments for the past periods during which the payments have already been made including the payments made twice over. 1 Facts of the Case
2. The petitioner, M/s Muthoot Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd.(MBPL) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a part and parcel of a group of companies known as “Muthoot Group”. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner is another incorporated company known as Muthoot Finance Limited (MFL)(hereinafter also referred to as “the licensee”), who had participated in the phase –II of auctions of FM License, which was conducted by respondent no. 1, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Union of India.
3. The licensee was successful in Chennai city FM tender and was accordingly, allotted spectrum in the band 104.8 MHz. It entered into a Grant of Permission Agreement (GOPA) with respondent no. 1 to operate a FM station in Chennai on 5.1.2007. It then set up an FM radio station in the City of Chennai popularly known as “Chennai Live @ 104.8 FM.
4. Subsequently, Muthoot Finance Limited (“the licensee”) demerged the FM business from its portfolio and handed over the Amendments made in the petition vide M.A. no. 219 allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 25 th August, 2011. same to the petitioner company namely, M/s Muthoot Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd.(MBPL) in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 9.4.2010 in C.P . No. 5 of 2010.
5. Content / programs, which are to be broadcast on FM channels, are produced in studios and then carried to a transmitter where they are suitably modulated on particular frequencies assigned to the channels using a technique called Frequency Modulation (hence the name, FM broadcast). The transmitter consists of electrical equipment which is normally maintained in climate controlled conditions. The output of this transmitter is taken by means of cable to a transmission tower from where the same is broadcast.
6. In terms of the tender document of respondent no. 1 for FM Radio Broadcasting phase II through private agencies, it was mandatory for all Phase II operators to co-locate the transmission facilities in all the 91 cities with that of respondent no.2. While in 84 cities these were to be collocated with existing AIR/DD,
7. In 7 cities, that included Chennai, where new towers were required to be constructed, the successful bidders were permitted to operationalize their channels on individual basis for a period of two years or till co-location facility was commissioned, whichever was later, at the end of which they were required to shift their operations to the new facilities. The relevant clauses of the tender are as under:
3.11.1.
It has been made mandatory for all phase – II operators to co-locate transmission facilities in all the 91 cities, on terms and conditions to be prescribed separately. In 84 cities, the facilities would be co-located on existing AIR/ DD towers, while in remaining 7 cities, new towers shall be constructed by the Ministry, through
