Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
1. The petitioner is a multi systems operator serving the areas within Jabalpur city in Madhya Pradesh. The respondent, M/s Zee Turner Pvt Ltd., is a broadcaster and distributor of satellite television channels of "Zee".2. The petitioner was getting signals from the respondent based on an agreement entered into between the parties dated 1.6.2006. According to the petitioner, the respondent began pressurizing it to increase the number of subscribers from the negotiated base of 4221 subscribers as per the agreement and when this was not accepted by the petitioner, its signals were disconnected from 13th to 27th September, 2006 illegally without notice. On 27.10.2006 the respondent published a public notice to disconnect the signals of the petitioner for non-payment of dues resulting in the petitioner filing this petition praying for the following relief: i) restrain the respondent from disconnecting the signals provided/supplied to the petitioner on observance of terms and conditions of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Reported in : (2004)2CompLJ519TelecomDSAT
1. This is a petition (Petition No. 17 of 2002) filed by Sterling Cellular Ltd. and others under Section 14A(1) read with Section 14(a)(i) and other applicable provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. The petitioner is challenging the incorrect levy of interest charged by the respondent, i.e., Department of Telecommunications, on a non-existent and a notional amount of licence fee for the period 1.8.1999 to 20.9.1999. Copies of the impugned demand notes dated 10.8.1999 and 6.3.2000 have been annexed with the petition.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had submitted their bids in response to the notice inviting tender bearing No.44-24/91-MMC issued on 20.1.1992 for introducing cellular mobile telephone services in selected metres in India. The petitioners were awarded separate licences for establishing, maintaining and operating cellular mobile telephone services in their respective service areas.Under the metro licence agreement, the cell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Reported in : (2005)6CompLJ35TelecomDSAT
1. Petitioner in this petition has prayed for a direction to the Respondents to release the performance bank guarantee furnished by it in favour of the 1st Respondent primarily on the ground that period for which guarantee was given had expired, therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the Petitioner to keep the guarantee current and there is no right on the Respondents to invoke the said bank guarantee.2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:- Petitioner entered into an Internet Service Provider (ISP) Licence Agreement dated 24.11.1999 with the Department of Telecommunications, now 1st Respondent, for category 'B' service area in Rajasthan. Under the said Licence Agreement, the Petitioner has to provide internet access to various customers through dial-up connection as well as leased lines connection. Under clause 3.6 of the terms and conditions governing the said ISP Licence Agreement, the Petitioner Company was required to furnish a perform...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Reported in : (2006)2CompLJ343TelecomDSAT
1. This Petition has been filed by M/s Malda Satellite Link which is stated to be a society registered under the Registration of Societies, West Bengal Act XXVI of 1961 and is also holding registration certificate for running a cable television network in Malda district of West Bengal issued by the relevant authority. The Petitioner has challenged the action of Respondent No. 1, namely, M/s SET Discovery India Pvt. Limited whereby the signals of its television programme channels which were hitherto being given to the Petitioner were disconnected sometime in August 2003. According to the Petitioner this action of Respondent No. 1 was carried out without any prior notice to the Petitioner and is alleged to have done in collusion with Respondent No. 2, namely, M/s Malda Cable Network, who has been operating as a cable operator in Malda town before the network of the Petitioner got established and whose customer base is also larger compared to the Petitioner.2. The Petition has been filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Reported in : (2007)1CompLJ504TelecomDSAT
1. The petitioner, M/s ICONET Communication Pvt. Ltd., registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is in the field of radio communication and is providing Public Mobile Radio Trunking Services (PMRTS). For this purpose, it is associated with companies like Motorola, Kenwood, ICOM and uses their radio equipment. For the purpose of provision of PMRTS at Kodai Kanal, Kotagiri and Yercaud in Tamil Nadu, the Company has obtained three licences. In addition, the petitioner has obtained licences for the purpose of demonstration of their equipment at various localities. The respondents are Union of India, Department of Telecommunications, who issued the licences to the petitioner. The petitioner had given bank guarantees of Rs. 5 lakhs each for the three licences respectively amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs by way of three securities for the due observance of licences. According to the petitioner, it had been operating its services strictly in accordance with the terms of the licence agreements, but w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Reported in : (2006)6CompLJ387TelecomDSAT
1. Petitioner No. 1, M/s ASC Enterprises is a licensed provider of Direct to Home (DTH) television services to consumers under a license granted by the Central Government (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) on 16/7/2003. Petitioner No. 2, M/s New Era Entertainment Network Ltd is stated to be a content aggregator for the DTH platform of Petitioner No. 1.2. Direct to Home (DTH) is a system whereby the DTH service provider receives the signals of various channels from the broadcasters and other channel providers and thereafter transmits them in an encrypted form wherever required through the satellite to the consumers who receive the signals at their premises through a dish antenna and are decoded/decrypted by a set-top-box attached to the TV set if necessary by making use of a viewing card which enables the customer to view the transmitted channels on TV. DTH is a mode of distribution of signals of television channels whereby signals are received at subscriber premises directly f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
1. These appeals have been filed under Section 14(b) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as TRAI Act) challenging the notifications dated 24.8.2006 and dated 31.8.2006 issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (for short TRAI). The impugned notification dated 24.8.2006 amends the Interconnection Regulations dated 10.12.2004. By virtue of the amendment, the broadcasters get 45% share in the revenue while Multi System Operators (MSOs for short) and Local Cable Operators (LCOs for short) get the balance 55%. Further, a standard Interconnect Agreement has been provided for, which is to operate if the parties fail to arrive at interconnect agreement mutually within the stipulated period.By the impugned notification dated 31.8.2006, the TRAI has prescribed a maximum retail price of Rs. 5/- per pay channel per month per subscriber.2. The appellant in Appeal No. 10(C) of 2006 (SET Discovery Pvt Ltd) claims to be a company engaged in the bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
1. This is an Appeal filed by BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. under Section 14A(2) and other applicable sections of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 against the order dated 23^rd December, 2002 passed by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in case No.314-3/2002-TRAI (Eco.) pursuant to the directions of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 656 of 2002.2. The facts of the case are as under. The Appellant Company, BPL Mobile Cellular Limited is licensed under the India Telegraph Act, 1885 to provide Cellular mobile services in the telecom circles of Maharashtra and Goa (excluding Mumbai), Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry (excluding Chennai) and Kerala. A Writ Petition was filed against the Appellant Company in the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High court by one Shri Sudhanshu who alleged that BPL Mobile Cellular Limited had advertised a particular tariff plan, inclusive of free incoming calls for a period of 1 year in widely circulated Maharashtra-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
1.1. SKSE Securities Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Broker), Member, National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as NSE) and Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd (hereinafter referred to as BSE) is registered with Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) as a stock broker. SEBI conducted an inspection of the books of accounts, records and other documents of the Broker during September 23, 2002 to September 28, 2002 for the period January 28, 2000 to September 23, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the relevant period). The inspection carried out by SEBI observed certain irregularities / deficiencies committed by the Broker during the relevant period. It was inter alia observed that the Broker had allowed certain sub brokers to trade without the certificate of registration and that it had allowed a sub broker to trade during his suspension period. Besides, the inspecting authority had also observed discrepancies in the stock broker - sub b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Per: N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer 1. Whether the appellant made a misleading announcement or failed to disclose price sensitive information to the investors when it sought to acquire three companies to expand its business operations is the short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal filed under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Facts giving rise to this appeal which lie in a narrow compass may first be stated. 2. The appellant, a public limited company whose shares are listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE) and National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. is in the business of information technology services with its corporate head quarters at Chennai and subsidiaries and offices in USA, Singapore and Bangalore. The appellant was looking for expanding its operations and on a proposal received from M/s. Price waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. in or around February 2005, it agreed to acquire three companies namely, vMoksha Technologies ...
Tag this Judgment!