Delhi High Court
Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd vs Sun Direct Tv Pvt Ltd on 16 September, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
36.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11639/2009
Date of decision: 16th September, 2009
NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Vikram Mehta & Mr. Abhinav
Agnihotri, Advocates.
versus
SUN DIRECT TV PVT LTD. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vivek Sibal, Ms. Narayani K. Sibal & Ms.
Shruti Ranjan, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
%
1. The impugned order dated 4th September, 2009 passed by the
Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal modifies the earlier
interim order and has directed the Sun Direct TV Private Limited, the
respondent herein to furnish security deposit of Rs.25 lacs in cash and
Rs.25 lacs by way of bank guarantee. By the earlier interim order dated
18th December, 2008, the respondent herein was directed to furnish
security deposit of Rs.1 crore and bank guarantee of Rs.2 crores in favour
W.P. (C) No. 11639/2009 Page 1
of the petitioner-Neo Sports Broadcast Private Limited for receiving
broadcast signals for the direct to home television service.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no
justification for reducing the security deposit and the reference inter-
connect offer requires payment of security deposit of Rs.3 crores. The
respondent has challenged some of the terms of the reference inter-
connect offer, but no final adjudication has been done. He states that the
security deposit cannot vary from time to time. It is submitted that
number of subscribers seeing a sports channel can vary depending on
whether a sports event is being broadcast on the said channel. It is
further stated that the respondents are charging Rs.5 crores as security
deposit. Lastly, he submits that the figures of subscribers given by the
respondent are very low and the petitioner has asked for audit. Learned
counsel appearing for the respondent, however, disputes the contention
that the petitioner has asked for audit.
3. This Court is not as an appellate forum and is not re-examining
merits and demerits of the contentions raised by the parties. A writ court
is concerned with the decision making process and not the final conclusion
or the decision. Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in
its order dated 4th September, 2009 has observed that the monthly
subscription fee being paid by the respondent is not more than Rs.5 lacs a
month and the said figure is not disputed. The tribunal has further
W.P. (C) No. 11639/2009 Page 2
recorded that during the period of last nine months there is not even a
single default by the respondent. Lastly, the petitioner is entitled to
disconnect the signal by giving three weeks' notice. The tribunal noticed
that the petitioner has charged security deposit of Rs.75 lacs from Big TV,
which the petitioner claims was on account of special circumstances.
However, in respect of Tata Sky, it is stated that in view of the interim
order passed by the tribunal, no security deposit has been charged. It is
stated that Airtel has paid full security deposit of Rs.3 crores. Thus,
different service providers have paid different amounts towards security
deposit. The object and purpose of security deposit, as is apparent from
the order of the tribunal, is to secure and protect the broadcasters against
defaults and to ensure recovery in case payment is not made. It cannot
be a penal or an exorbitant amount but relatable to the subscription fee
payable. The impugned order specifically records that the allegation that
the respondent or their sister concern as a broadcaster is charging security
deposit of Rs.5 crores, is not a substantiated fact. No documents has
been filed along with the writ petition to show that the respondent has
received security deposit of Rs.5 crores.
4. Keeping these aspects in mind, I do not think any ground for
interference in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is made
out. It is, however, clarified that in case it transpires that the number of
subscribers attached to the respondent has increased or there was/is
W.P. (C) No. 11639/2009 Page 3
wrong disclosure, the petitioner will be entitled to move an application for
modification of the interim order passed by the Telecom Disputes
Settlement and Appellate Tribunal. It is also clarified that the observations
made in this order are prima facie and tentative and will not influence the
learned tribunal while deciding and disposing of the appeal.
The writ petition is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 11639/2009 Page 4
