News Headline
TDSAT: MSO Honey Sky Vision’s petition against INX News dismissed
NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a petition by multi-system operator Honey Sky Vision wanting a decree against INX News for certain payments.
Chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava said, “Since the agreement itself fails to get our acceptance and absence of invoices and proper statement of account, there is no justification for entertaining this petition. Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.”
Honey Sky Vision had filed for issuance of order/decree in its favour and against INX News for an amount of Rs 23,59,560 as the alleged outstanding amount due in lieu of placement of channel News X on its network. Additionally an order awarding interest at the rate of 18 percent in favour of the petitioner had also been sought.
The case of the MSO is that the INX News had entered into an agreement with it for placement of its channel News X on the petitioner’s network. The agreement was for the period 28 September 2011 to 27 September.2012 and for a consideration of Rs. 21 lakh per annum plus service tax as payable.
The MSO claimed it complied with all its obligations; carried/placed News X at desired frequency/band to the complete satisfaction of the respondent whose representatives/officials regularly visited the networks/units of the petitioner in various areas of Delhi.
The petitioner also claims to have raised/provided monthly invoices to the respondent for placement of its channel. However, INX News completely denied all allegations made by the petitioner including execution of any placement agreement between the parties.
The MSO produced copy of a placement agreement which only bore its representative’s signature and not those of INX News. The MSO also failed to produce the invoices it claimed to have raised.
The tribunal, which also examined witnesses, said, “In view of facts emerging on the basis of pleadings, documents and evidences adduced, it is extremely difficult to accept the agreement, in the form it has been produced before us, as a legitimate and validly executed agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. Rather we hold and find that there was no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent.”
