HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED vs ATUL SURESH SHAHU AND ANR.

1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
rd
Dated 23 July,2026
Broadcasting Petition No. 279 of 2015

Hinduja Global Solutions Limited …Petitioner
Vs.
Atul Suresh Shahu and Anr. …Respondents

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER

For Petitioner : Mr. Upender Thakur, Advocate
Ms Vishakha U Thakur, Advocate
Ms. Shreya Kardam, Advocate
Ms. Karishma Singh, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Mandeep Solanki For R-2 , Advocate

JUDGMENT


1. This Petition, under Section 14, read with Section 14A of the
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, (hereinafter
referred to as “TRAI Act”), has been filed, by Petitioner -

2

IndusInd Media and Communications Ltd., against Atul Suresh
Shahu, proprietor of Shahu Cable Network, Nagpur, Respondent
No. 1, and Siti Cable Network Limited, Worli, Mumbai,
Respondent No. 2, with a prayer to direct Respondents to pay
an amount of outstanding subscription fees to the tune of Rs.
7,90,436/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred
Thirty Six Only), billed upto 31.03.2015, with pendentelite and
future interest, @18% per annum, till realization, with a further
prayer for a direction to make payment of Rs. 8,61,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Only), towards cost of
615 Set Top Boxes (STBs), alongwith interest @ 18% over it.


2. In brief, the Petition contends that Petitioner is a Company,
registered under the Companies Act, and carrying on business
of receiving of signal from broadcasters of various television
channels, either by satellite or terrestrial means, free to air or
encrypted and diffusing or redistributing, such channel by
means of co-axial cable and/or optical fiber cable, and
associated equipment, to its affiliated/ controlled/ franchise
cable networks, for reception by multiple subscribers, i.e. , the

3

Petitioner is a Multi System Operator(MSO), operating PAN
India and having one of its networks in the city of Nagpur,
Maharashtra. Mr Devender Singh Thakur, is the authorised
representative of the Petitioner Company, vide Board
Resolution, dated 29.01.2015, Annexure P-1 to Petition, who
had filed this Petition, for and on behalf of Petitioner Company.

3. Respondent No. 1 is a proprietary firm of Mr. Shahu Cable
Network, running Cable business in Nagpur City, as a Local
Cable Operator(LCO) of the Petitioner, for retransmitting the
signals provided by Petitioner to its subscriber.

4. Respondent No. 2, M/s Siti Cable Network Limited, is a part of
the Essel Group and is India’s prominent Multi System
Operator(MSO), operating in the area of Nagpur, Maharashtra.


5. Respondent No. 1 had executed the Standard Technical and
Commercial Interconnect Agreement (DAS), dated 08.01.2013,
with the Petitioner, governing the rights and obligations, in
respect of subscription and distribution of Cable TV Signals,
being transmitted by Petitioner to Respondent No. 1, and this

4

agreement, dated 08.01.2013, alongwith its schedule, is
Annexure P-2 to Petition.


6. Pursuant to the said agreement, dated 08.01.2013, Petitioner
had supplied 615 Set Top Boxes (STBs) to the Respondent No. 1,
for installing the same with its subscribers, and it was brand
new Set Top Boxes, with a purchase cost of Rs. 1400/- per STB.
The Invoice Cum Delivery Challan of the STBs, provided by the
Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1, is there. But, in utter
defiance of clause 6.4 and 6.5 of DAS Regulations, 2012 and
without clearing outstanding subscription dues, to be paid to
Petitioner by Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 1 migrated to
Siti Cable Network Ltd. i.e., Respondent No. 2 gradually from
the month of February, 2015 onward, without giving 21 days’
mandatory notice, required under Clause 6.4 and 6.5 of the
Interconnection DAS Regulations, 2012 and without clearing the
subscription outstanding dues of the Petitioner. This came to
the notice of Petitioner, in the first week of April 2015, when all
the STBs were swapped by Respondent No. 1, with Respondent
No. 2, by 31.03.2015. Hence, both of the Respondents, are

5

severally as well as jointly, liable to make the payment of cost of
all 615 STBs, i.e. Rs. 8,61,000/- @ 615 * Rs. 1400/-.


7. Petitioner had raised regular monthly computer generated
invoices for subscription dues to Respondent No. 1, seeking
payment of the monthly subscription amount, and these
invoices were hand delivered to Respondent No. 1. The copy of
the last invoice of month of March, 2015, handed to
Respondent No. 1, in the month of April, 2015 is Annexure P-3
to Petition. The Respondent No. 1 was very irregular in making
payment towards outstanding subscription dues, rather, it was
being paid in part. Inspite of several oral requests, the
outstanding subscription dues, in the tune of Rs. 7,90,436/-
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Six
Only), due upto March, 2015, was not paid by Respondent No.
1. A copy of Statement of Account of Petitioner is Annexure P-4
to Petition.

8. A legal notice, from the Office of Collector, Nagpur was received
by Petitioner on 01.04.2015, with a direction to not connect the
Local Cable Operator, Respondent No. 1, to its network without

6

obtaining ‘No Objection Certificate’ from Collector’s Office in
respect of payment of arrears of entertainment tax. This notice
is Annexure P-5 to Petition. Ultimately, Petitioner had issued a
notice, dated 22.04.2015, to both of the Respondents, to pay
the outstanding subscription fees of Rs. 7,90,436/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Six Only),
with an interest @18%, calculated on monthly basis, from the
date of default in realization, as well as to return STBs or to
make the payment of cost of STBs, amounting Rs. 8,61,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Only) alongwith
interest @18% per annum over it, within 04 days of the receipt
of this notice. This notice, served through R.P.A.D. is Annexure
P-6 to Petition. Neither payment was made, nor STBs were
returned by Respondent. Rather, Respondent No. 1, vide its
letter, dated 24.04.2015, asked one month more time, to file
detailed reply to this notice. There was no denial of the
contention of fact written in the notice of Petitioner in this
response. Respondent No. 2 didn’t respond to this notice.
Respondents have disconnected signals of Petitioner, without
making compliance of agreement, Regulations from February,

7

2015 onwards. A cause of action, within a period of limitation,
within territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal, in between, three
service providers had arisen. Hence, this Petition with above
prayer.

9. Owing to change of name of Petitioner Company, from IndusInd
Media and Communication Limited, the present name and
status Hinduja Global Solutions Limited, had been brought on
record, and this was with permission of leave by this Tribunal, in
judicial side.

10. Reply, for and on behalf of Respondent No. 1, was with denial of
the contention of Petition, in whole, subject to contention that
it was the Petitioner, who had disconnected the TV Channel
Signals to the network of Respondent No. 1 in an arbitrary, high
handed manner, without any notice, as mandated by the
Regulations, without assigning any reasons for such
disconnection, and it is the Petitioner, who had caused to this
Answering Respondent No. 1, irreparable loss as subscribers left
the network of Answering Respondent, owing to illegal and
arbitrary disconnection by Petitioner in February, 2015.

8


11. Respondent No. 1 had not indulged in any alleged swapping,
rather, Petitioner had not come forward to claim and collect the
STBs, which in any event, after disconnection of signal by
Petitioner, are redundant for any purposes, to this Answering
Respondent No. 1. It was the Petitioner, who illegally required
the Respondent to swap its own Set Top Boxes with those of
other MSOs, which was refused by this Respondent, resulting
promptly deactivating the signals of Respondent, with a raising
of bogus, imaginary and fabricated claims of alleged
outstanding subscription dues, in its notice, dated 22.04.2015.

12. Petitioner, being one of the major Multi System Operator, in the
country, having strong dominance and monopolistic power,
pressurized LCOs, including present Respondent No. 1, to agree
one sided terms, for the supply of digital signals, on arbitrary
rates, upon its Cable Operators, by failing to adopt transparent
business practices in the market. He took blank signed cheques,
as a mandatory pre-condition for doing this business, and
subsequently, threatened to utilize the same in criminal
complaints. The said Interconnect Agreement was not supplied

9

to Respondent No. 1. No invoices were ever raised, nor were
ever due. Rather, Respondent No. 1 was compelled to make
payment, on a unilateral and whimsical basis, @ Rs. 55/56 per
subscriber, since 2013 and this money was being recovered
forcibly with no outstanding at any moment. 615 STBs, being
said to be of brand new, were never supplied to Respondent
No. 1. The alleged cost of Rs. 1400/- per STB, and the alleged
invoice cum delivery challan, is also forged and fabricated.
Rather, 590 number of STBs were supplied to Respondent No. 1
by the Petitioner, in a staggered manner, as and when required
by Respondent No. 1, from time to time, and that too only after
deposit of a varying amount of Rs. 700 to Rs. 1200 per STB, as
refundable security deposit. The Petitioner also too blank
signed cheques, as security from this Respondent No. 1. The
alleged Statement of Accounts, filed by Petitioner, is disputed
and denied. Respondent has made all concerned payments to
the Petitioner and there is absolutely no outstanding
subscription fee payable by it to the Petitioner. Hence, the
Petition was prayed to be dismissed.

10

13. Respondent No. 2 in its reply, denied the contention of Petition,
and because of no Privity of Contract, in between, and being of
a competitive MSO, said to have been falsely implicated in this
proceeding. The complete denial of swapping and responsibility
of this Respondent No. 2 was made.


14. Replication cum rejoinder by Petitioner is with the denial of the
contention of reply and reiteration of the contention of
Petition. One additional fact was given in this part of pleading,
that Tribunal, vide its interim order appointed, Mr. Kunal
Tandon, as a Court Commissioner, with a direction for ensuring
the return of STBs, and the report filed by this Advocate
Commissioner and the actual factual position, not being
disputed by this Petitioner, was that out of 615 STBs being
claimed in Petition, 588 STBs were returned by this Respondent
No. 1. Thereby, the number of STBs remained to be pending
with Respondent No. 1 were 27. Hence, the claim in this head
was prayed for 27 STBs only.


15. On the basis of pleadings of both side, following issues were
framed by Registrar of this Tribunal on 11.05.2017 :

11


1. Whether Petitioner is entitled to claim amount
towards outstanding subscription fees and cost of
Set Top Boxes along with interest from Respondent
No.1 and 2 as claimed in the respective Petition?

2. Whether signals of the Petitioner were
disconnected by Respondent No.1 in compliance of
TRAI Regulations?
3. Whether Respondent No.1 is entitled to refund of
security fee towards Set Top Boxes from the
Petitioner?
4. Whether Petitioner can claim any relief against
Respondent No.2 for alleged irregularities
committed by Respondent No.1?


16. Petitioner filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Harish Kalyani.
Respondent No. 1 filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Atul
Suresh Shahu.

17. Written submission by Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 got
filed. On the date of hearing, none appeared for Respondent

12

No. 1, and owing to failure to appear by Respondent No. 1, on
repeated dates, the proceeding took as ex-parte against
Respondent No. 1.

18. Heard arguments of Learned Counsel for Petitioner, as well as
Respondent No. 2 at length, and gone through materials placed
on record.

19. The proceeding before this Tribunal is a civil proceeding, as has
been given in the TRAI Act, itself. In a civil proceeding, the
preponderance of probabilities is the touchstone for making a
decision, as against strict burden of proof, required in criminal
proceeding.

20. Hon’ble Apex Court in Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh – AIR 2006
SC 1971 has propounded that onus to prove a fact is on the
person who asserts it. Under Section 102 of The Indian Evidence
Act, initial onus is always on the plaintiff to prove his case and if
he discharges, the onus shifts to defendant. It has further been
propounded in Premlata Vs. Arhant Kumar Jain- AIR 1976 SC

13

626 that where both parties have already produced whatever
evidence they had, the question of burden of proof ceases to
have any importance. But while appreciating the question of
burden of proof and misplacing the burden of proof on a
particular party and recording of findings in a particular way will
definitely vitiate the judgment. The old principle propounded by
Privy Council in Lakshman Vs. Venkateswarloo – AIR 1949 PC
278 still holds good that burden of proof on the pleadings never
shifts, it always remains constant. Factually proving of a case in
his favour is cost upon plaintiff when he fulfils, onus shifts over
defendants to adduce rebutting evidence to meet the case
made out by plaintiff. Onus may again shift to plaintiff. Hon’ble
Apex Court in State of J & K Vs Hindustan Forest Co. (2006) 12
SCC 198 has propounded that the plaintiff cannot obviously
take advantage of the weakness of defendant. The plaintiff
must stand upon evidence adduced by him. Though unlike a
criminal case, in civil cases there is no mandate for proving fact
beyond reasonable doubt, but even preponderance of
probabilities may serve as a good basis of decision, as was
propounded in M Krishnan Vs Vijay Singh- 2001 CrLJ 4705.

14

Hon’ble Apex Court in Raghvamma Vs. A Cherry Chamma – AIR
1964 SC 136 has propounded that burden and onus of proof are
two different things. Burden of proof lies upon a person who
has to prove the facts and it never shifts. Onus of proof shifts.
Such shifting of onus is a continuous process in evaluation of
evidence.

21. Issue No. 2

The Petition is with specific contention that in the month of
February, 2015 Respondent No. 1 was LCO, of Petitioner-MSO,
migrated to Respondent No. 2, a competitive MSO, without
giving statutory notice of 21 days, required under Regulation
6.4 and 6.5 of Interconnect Regulation, 2012, and making
payment of outstanding subscription dues to Petitioner.
Whereas, Respondent No. 1 in its reply had clearly admitted the
disconnection from February, 2015, and ultimately, its
migration to Respondent No. 2, for protecting its business. But,
this was said to be unilateral disconnection by Petitioner itself.
Hence, the issue had been framed by Registrar, as to whether
signals of Petitioner were disconnected by Respondent No. 1, in

15

compliance of TRAI Regulations i.e., there is no contention by
Respondent No. 1, that it disconnected the Petitioner’s signal in
compliance of TRAI Regulations. Meaning thereby, this issue
was never raised on the basis of pleadings of both side. The
issue which had arisen in this context is as to whether
Respondent No. 1, migrated to Respondent No. 2, without
observing those provisions of TRAI Regulation, as is being said
by Petitioner, or it was the Petitioner itself, who had
disconnected its signal to Respondent No. 1. The very burden of
proof, was upon Petitioner, that the migration was by
Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2, then this onus shifts
over Respondent No. 1 to prove, that migration was not there
of Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2; rather, it was
disconnection by Petitioner itself. But, end of the relationship
from the month of February, 2015, in between, two parties to
above Interconnect Agreement is undisputed. Now, the
Petitioner, vide its evidence in affidavit, had reiterated its
contention that it was the migration i.e., illegal swapping by
Respondent No. 1 with MSO-Respondent No. 2, started from
February, 2015 and completed in March, 2015, and for this

16

evidence, there is no cross examination or request of cross
examination by Respondent, for having an opportunity to test
this witness, on the anvil of cross examination. Rather, the very
contention of Petition has been substantiated by this
uncontroverted affidavit of Petitioner. Hence, the burden to
prove, that it was Petitioner, who had deactivated the signals,
against the Interconnect Agreement, was upon Respondent No.
1 and Respondent No. 1 opted not to contest this Petition,
resulting ex-parte proceeding against it. The very witness, who
had been examined for Respondent No. 1 in its evidence, had
not disputed the fact, that 615 STBs, which were got collected
by way of appointment of Advocate Commissioner, Mr.Kunal
Tandon, in compliance of Interim Order of this Tribunal, were
ever tried to be returned to Petitioner, before this Petition and
exercise by Advocate Commissioner. Whereas, the agreement
itself was with clear mention that these STBs were the property
of Petitioner, MSO. The moment relationship ceased, in
between, there was every responsibility to return these STBs to
Petitioner. Hence, this issue is being decided against
Respondent No. 1.

17



22. Issue No. 1
The Petitioner in its Petition had said that computer generated
invoices were raised and handed over to Respondent No. 1, for
making payment of the same, and it was the part payment, very
irregularly, was being made by Respondent No. 1. The
Statement of Account, being maintained in usual ordinary
course of business by Petitioner had been filed on record, and it
had been annexed with evidence affidavit, with a certificate,
required under Section 65B of Evidence Act, with a specific
mention that it was drawn from the computer, being operated
by a computer in charge, having the data, stored in it, in the
usual course of business from where it was drawn and filed on
record as data evidence. This affidavit had been allowed, in
evidence and taken in evidence by this Tribunal. Meaning
thereby, this Statement of Account is with clear mention of the
outstanding subscription dues, in the tune of Rs. 7,90,436/-
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Six
Only), due till March, 2015 against Respondent No. 1. As against
this contention, the reply of Respondent No. 1 is with specific

18

mention, that nothing remained as due, towards subscription
dues, rather, the subscription dues were being paid by
Respondent No. 1. Now, this burden shifts upon Respondent
No. 1 to prove the payment of subscription dues, as has been
said by it. Petitioner had said that subscription dues was
outstanding and the Statement of Account, maintained in the
ordinary course of business, had been annexed with the
Petition, as well as evidence affidavit, alongwith certificate,
required under Section 65B of Evidence Act, with full assertion
of the contention of this and dues outstanding towards
subscription amount. Hence, this burden which was the onus of
proof over Petitioner, had been fully discharged by this
Petitioner. Now, the reply of Respondent No. 1 is of this
contention that it had made the entire payment towards
subscription dues. Hence, this onus to prove this fact shifts over
Respondent No. 1 and for this Respondent No. 1 was under
duty to prove its contention that it had made the payment of
subscription dues to Petitioner, till the cease of the relationship,
in between. But, no Statement of Account or cogent evidence
has been filed by Respondent No. 1 on record. Merely, the

19

contention of the same vague fact of payment in affidavit
evidence is there. Hence, under all preponderance of
probabilities, the burden of proof lying upon Petitioner had
been exhausted and proved the outstanding subscription dues
till March, 2015 in the tune of Rs. 7,90,436/- (Rupees Seven
Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Six Only), against
Respondent No. 1. Hence, for this, Petitioner is entitled to
receive from Respondent No. 1.
The 27 STBs are also to be taken back from
Respondent No. 1, but, Respondent No. 1 in its reply had
specifically said that remaining STBs to be redundant one.
Hence, they are of no avail, hence, the depreciated value @ Rs.
1000/- per STBs, for 27 STBs are to be awarded against
Respondent No. 1, in favour of Petitioner.
Accordingly, the total outstanding subscription
dues, in the tune of Rs. 7,90,436/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety
Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Six Only) alongwith the cost of
depreciated value/cost of 27 STBs @ Rs.1000/-, amounting to
Rs. 27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand only) is also to be
awarded in favour of Petitioner. The Pendentelite and future

20

interest, as has been previously awarded by this Tribunal, in
many of the Judgments, decided under the present fiscal and
financial scenario @ S.I. 9% is to be awarded in favour of
Petitioner against Respondent No. 1, for those amounts. So far
as Respondent No. 2 is concerned, admittedly, there is no
Privity of Contract in between, Petitioner and Respondent No.2.
Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are competitive MSO, having
no contractual obligation, in between. And no evidence of
connivance in alleged migration, rather, specific denial by
Respondent No. 1 towards migration, and the law laid down by
this Tribunal, in many previously decided cases, is of no liability
towards this claim. More so, Learned Counsel for Petitioner, in
its argument, has admitted that he is not making any claim
against Respondent No. 2, because of there being no privity in
between and the law settled by this Tribunal in this regard.
Accordingly, this issue is being decided, as above, in favour of
Petitioner, as against Respondent No. 1 only.

21

23. Issue No. 3
The very contention of making payment of security amount, by
Respondent No. 1, for issue of those 615 STBs is not
substantiated because of the return of 588 STBs by Respondent
No. 1, through Advocate Commissioner to Petitioner. More so,
the alleged covenant of security etc., is not there in the
agreement, nor it has been proved by any cogent evidence.
Hence, this issue is being decided against Respondent No. 1.

24. Issue No. 4
On the basis of decision of Issue Nos. 1 and 2, this Issue No. 4 is
being decided in favour of Respondent No. 2.


25. On the basis of above discussions, this Petition merits to be
decreed as against Respondent No. 1.

ORDER
The Petition is being decreed as against
Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, Atul Suresh Shahu, is
being directed to make deposit of Rs. 7,90,436/- (Rupees Seven

22

Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Six Only), towards
outstanding subscription dues, upto 31.03.2015 and Rs.
27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Only) towards
depreciated cost of 27 STBs with pendente lite and future
interest, from the date of Petition till actual realisation @ 9%
per annum Simple Interest, within the two months of Judgment
in the Tribunal for making payment to Petitioner and in case of
failure, the same is to be got executed as per procedure of
execution.
Formal order / decree be got prepared by office,
accordingly.

….......………………
(Justice Ram Krishna Gautam)
Member
23.07.2026
/NC/