LexSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. versus SEA T.V. NETWORK LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. A v. SEA T.V. NETWORK LTD. AND ANR. APRIL 3, 2007 [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDS. H.KAPADIA. JJ.] B Constitution of India-Article 19(1) (g)-Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations, 2004- Regulations 2 (b), 2(j), 2(m) & 3-Appointment of a sole and exclusive Distributor by a broadcaster to transmit its satellite bouquet television C' channels in a particular city-Broadcaster directing another competing distributor to seek signals of its television channels from the sole distributor- Petition before Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal filed by the distributor seeking a direction to the broadcaster to provide its signals directly was allowed-Correctness of-Held, the object of the Regulations to D eliminate monopoly will be defeated if a distributor is directed to seek television signals from its competing distributor-On facts, there is no principal-agent relationship between the broadcaster and the sole distributor and hence the direction of the distributor by the broadcaster to obtain signals from its sole distributor is per se discriminatory. Appellant-company, a broadcaster, entered into a Distribution Agreement appointing respondent no. 2-company, a Multi-System Operator (MSO), as its E sole and exclusive distributor for transmission of its satellite bouquet television channels in a particular city. The Agreement stated that respondent no. 2 company will act independently and that the relationship between the parties F is on principal to principal basis. Respondent no. 1, a competing MSO, approached the appellant to provide signals of its television channels for transmission in the same city. The appellant directed respondent no. 1 to receive the signals from respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1 filed a petition before Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal seeking a direction to the appellant to provide its television signals directly and not through G respondent no. 2. The tribunal allowed the petition and held that the direction by the appellant to a distributor to seek signals from a competing distributor is per se discriminatory under the Regulations. 691 H 692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. A In appeal to this Court, the app~llant contended that under the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cab~!! Services) Interconnection Regulations, 2004, a broadcaster is not prohibited to appoint a MSO as its agent on exclusive basis for given territory; that such prohibition would be hit by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India; that the D.istribution Agreement was in consonance with the Regulations; that the appointment of B a MSO as an agent per se is not prejudicial to competition and is necessary to know the ground realities; that the Regulations itself recognizes overlap functions between the agent and the MSO; that the Tribunal is in error in holding that a distributor of TV channels cannot be an agent under the Regulations; that distributors, agents, MSOs and cable operators cannot be C treated as distinct categories since their different functions overlap each other; that there is no functional difference between re~transmission of signals and making available TV channels; that there is hardly any difference in the quality of signals that can be received by a distributor through Decoders and through a cable feed; and that the Tribunal is in error in.holding that providing signals to a distributor through an agent who is also a distributor is per se D discriminatory. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the case of overlap of functions to be performed by each entity under the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) E Interconnection Regulations, 2004 like a Distributor, MSO, agent/ intermediary, one has to go by the facts of each case and the terms of Agreement between the broadcaster and his agent-cum-distributor. In a competitive world today, if under the Interconnection Regulations, an MSO, who is entitled to receive signals directly from a broadcaster, if directed to F approach his competitor MSO, then discrimination comes in. If that another MSO has.to depend on the Feed to be provided by the exclusive agent of the broadcaster then the very object of the In~erconnection Regulation stands defeated. Even technically the quality of signals receivable through the Decoders is different from the quality of signals receivable through
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.