Supreme Court dismisses appeal against Zee Entertainment’s notice for Rs 90 lakh licence fee:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday excused a common allure documented by Bhima Riddhi Digital Services (presently known as Metro Cast Network India Private Limited) testing the judgment passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) which thus had excused its allure against the notification gave by Zee Entertainment Pvt.Ltd (ZEEL) guaranteeing a remarkable permit charge adding up to Rs 89,58,500.The matter was recorded today under the watchful eye of the two-judge seat of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran, which has wouldn't meddle with the discoveries of the TDSAT in its judgment dated 25.02.2021, by excusing Civil Appeal No. 1140 of 2021 documented by Bhima Riddhi. The litigant/Bhima Riddhi fought under the watchful eye of the Top Court that TDSAT was blundered in holding that there was no expansion in the timetable for digitisation of DAS Phase-3 informed zones past 31.12.2015.However, the Supreme Court agreed with the discoveries of TDSAT that there has been no warning by the Central Government under Section 4A of CTN Act whereby the date of execution of digitisation qua DAS Phase-3 zones has been stretched out past 31.12.2015.
On 25.02.2021, Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) seat headed by Chairperson Justice Shiva Kirti Singh had held that "a serious arrangement or MOU between the gatherings alluding to a date fixed by the legal authority can't be overlooked by one gathering when the legal authority has not given further warning which could influence the execution of the MOU from January 2016 onwards."Bhima Riddhi, one of the greatest Multi-System Operator (MSOs) occupied with the matter of transmission of transmission through link network in the State of Karnataka, via a Petition in the Hon'ble TDSAT had tested the understanding executed by it with Taj/ZEEL (Zee Entertainment Enterprise Limited) asserting that since the said arrangement was dependent upon the execution of DAS-III, the equivalent can't be authorised for the time frame compelling 01.01.2016. The case of the MSO depended on a supposition that DAS Phase III got delayed past the specified season of 31.12.2015 via different orders passed by the diverse High Courts of the country. The Court had said, "It isn't important to go into the above debate by virtue of applicant's stand that it has paid an abundance sum during the year 2016. The instance of overabundance instalment might have merited thought had the candidate's case been found to have merit. However, the discoveries recorded on merits are against the situation of the applicant." "The date for execution of DAS Phase-III was never reached out past 31.12.2015 either by the equipped legal position or by any judgment or request of a skilled official courtroom. Break orders converge into definite orders and lose their importance from there on. In the current matter, the candidate has not created any last judgment or request on the side of its case and the interval arranges additionally don't prompt an end which may help the instance of the applicant," noted by the TDSAT in its Order.
It had additionally noticed that "The issue with the solicitations raised by respondents based on DAS Agreement was likewise late. The question was raised after the solicitations were raised by the respondents for 4-5 months. There is no clarification why the ensuing DAS arrangement was for a term starting from 01.01.2017 when applicant has stood firm that the date for execution of DAS Phase-III got reached out to 31.01.2017." The Court had said, "In the aforementioned realities and conditions, this Tribunal discovers no benefits in this request and the equivalent is appropriately excused. The gatherings will change their records appropriately and act as per law and the specifications as concurred in the conceded DAS arrangements for the time frame starting from 01.01.2017." Under the steady gaze of Supreme Court, Bhima Riddhi was addressed by Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate and Siddharth Bhatnagar, Senior Advocate. ZEE then again was addressed under the watchful eye of Supreme Court by Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate and Upender Thakur, Advocate (Senior Partner-Singh and Singh Law Firm).