HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM LTD. & ANR vs OM CABLE TV NETWORK & ANR

1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
th
Dated 28 July, 2026
Broadcasting Petition No. 342 of 2017

Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited …Petitioner
Vs.
Om Cable TV Network and Anr. …Respondents

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER

For Petitioner : Mr. Nasir Husain, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Vibhav Srivastava, Ms Aashi Arora & Ms
Disthi Yadav For R-2 , Advocates

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 Petitioners–
Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited and Hathway Digital
Private Limited, against Om Cable TV Network, Respondent
No. 1, and M/s CCN Den Network Private Limited, Respondent
No. 2, with a prayer for award of a decree of Rs. 18,60,680/-
(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty
Only), towards outstanding subscription dues, alongwith 18%

2

per annum interest over it, with a further prayer for direction
to return 600 STBs in good and working condition, or to make
payment of the cost of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs
Fifty Thousand Only) @ Rs. 1250/- per STBs.

2. In brief, the Petition contends that Petitioner, Hathway Cable
and Datacom Limited, is a public limited Company
incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
th
having its registered Office at Rahejas, 4 Floor, Corner of
Main Avenue & V.P. Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400054,
which is a Cable Television Service Provider, duly registered
under the provisions of Section 3, of the Cable Television
Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as
Cable Television Act). It is an MSO/ Cable Operator, engaged in
the business of distribution of Television Channels, including
through Analog/ Digital and holds the license to operate, as a
Cable Operator, under the Cable Television Network
Regulation Act, 1995.

3. Petitioner No. 2, namely, Hathway Digital Private Limited, is a
wholly owned subsidiary Company of Hathway Cable and
Datacom Limited. It is also a Company registered under
Companies Act, 1956 and is having its Office at 805/ 806,
Windsor Off, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai
400098, with a Regional Office at Plot No. B-1/ G-3, Mohan Co-
operative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. It

3

is engaged in the retransmitting the signals of Cable TV to its
various operators on PAN India basis. The Cable TV business of
Petitioner No. 1, had been assigned to Petitioner No. 2, w.e.f.
01.04.2017, due to internal restructuring of Petitioner No. 1
Company.


4. The Respondent No. 1, namely, Om Cable TV Network, is a
Local Cable Operator, represented through its proprietor,
namely, Mr Amit Aggarwal, who had been retransmitting the
signals/ services to the subscribers, from the Petitioner and
thereby distributing the same in the area of Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara and has its Office situated at 257, Gali No. 2, Bhola
Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110032.

5. The Respondent No. 2, namely, M/s CCN Den Network Private
Limited, is a competitive MSO of the Petitioner, having its
Office at B-1/1, Block B, Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051.

6. On the request made by Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner
agreed to provide its signals/ services to be further
retransmitted to the subscribers, in the area of Bhola Nath
Nagar, Shahdara, by way of entering into Interconnect Term
Sheet/ Agreement, under the terms of which, Respondent No.
1 was liable to pay the monthly subscription charges,
enumerated in it. The Interconnect Term Sheet is still valid and
subsisting. Though there was a provision for drawing a long
form agreement, as mandated under this Sheet, as well as

4

Interconnect Regulations, but, it has yet not been entered by
Respondent No. 1. Hence, this agreement term Sheet is in
operation. The Petitioner has issued approximately 600 set top
boxes to Respondent No. 1 for acting upon the above
agreement entered, in between. This agreement Interconnect
Term Sheet/ Agreement, executed in between, Petitioner and
Respondent No. 1, is Annexure P-1 to Petition. In terms of the
aforesaid Interconnect Term Sheet/ Agreement, the Petitioner
has issued those 600 STBs to Respondent No. 1, for getting
them installed at subscriber’s end.

7. Petitioner had raised invoices, on Respondent No. 1, which
were duly received by him, without any protest or demur, but
have been paid in part by Respondent No. 1, and it was the
habit since the very inception of the relationship. Respondent
had been regular and chronic defaulter in discharging its
liabilities. The copies of invoices sent to Respondent No. 1 are
appended as Annexure P-2 (Colly) to Petition. Petitioner
maintained Statement of Account, in its usual and ordinary
course of business, which has been annexed as Annexure P-3
to Petition.

8. There was an outstanding subscription dues in the tune of Rs.
18,60,680/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand Six
Hundred and Eighty Only), against Respondent No. 1. Despite
requests, follow ups, and reminder from the Petitioner, it was

5

not cleared, except with an assurance to Petitioner, and
Petitioner always acted bonafidely, with a hope, that
Respondent No. 1 shall honor its contractual obligations, in
terms of Agreement entered in between, and is with bonafied
intentions.


9. Petitioner came to apprisal from the market sources that
Respondent No. 1, in utter disregard of the Regulations, had
migrated to the Respondent No. 2/ competing MSO, namely
M/s CCN Den Network Private Limited, without clearing the
outstanding subscription dues of Petitioner, and also without
returning the Set Top Boxes, which were the exclusive
property of the Petitioner. This migration was under the
collusive connivance of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 both. This
was against the provisions of Interconnect Regulations of TRAI.
Respondent No. 1 was under obligation to issue requisite
notice, before disconnecting the services of Petitioner,
unilaterally without complying with the Regulations, and at the
same time without the permission, consent and approval from
the Petitioner to swap the STBs of Petitioner, with Respondent
No. 2, and he thereby, caused huge loss to the business of
Petitioner.

10. Petitioner was constrained to sent a notice dated 27.06.2017,
to both of the Respondents showing deep anguish and
disappointment, with a prayer to make payment of

6

outstanding subscription dues, in the tune of Rs. 18,60,680/-
(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty
Only), alongwith interest due thereon @ 18% per annum, with
a further prayer to return 600 number of STBs, which were in
unlawful custody of them, in good and working condition, or to
make payment in the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven
Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) @ Rs. 1250/- per STB, and this legal
notice, dated 27.06.2017 is Annexure P-4 (Colly) to Petition.

11. There was no response by Respondent. This had caused for a
cause of action, within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Tribunal, within period of limitation. Hence, this Petition with
above prayer.

12. Reply by Respondent No. 2, was that the Petition was with
concealed material facts, and ought to be dismissed. There was
no Privity of Contract In between Petitioner and Respondent
No. 2. There was no relationship in between. No connivance or
collusion of Respondent No. 2 was there. Rather, Respondent
No. 2 is a competitive MSO, engaged in the same business, in
the same operating area, as is of Petitioner. Respondent No. 2
was in business relationship with Respondent No. 1, who is a
LCO and there was no obligation against Respondent No. 2 for
the conduct of Respondent No. 1. The alleged outstanding
subscription dues, as well as delivery of Set Top boxes, said to

7

be made by Petitioner was qua Respondent No. 1, and it may
be responsible for it.

13. Replication cum rejoinder by Petitioner, with same contention
of Petition and denial of contention of reply was made.


14. The proceeding against Respondent No. 1 was ordered to be
ex-parte, vide order dated 18.04.2018, and it was specifically
mentioned in it, that Respondent No. 1, after being sufficiently
served, had chosen not to appear so far, and this was ordered
to proceed ex-parte against Respondent No. 1, vide order
dated 08.05.2018.

15. On the basis of pleadings of both side, Court of Registrar
framed following issues on 22.05.2018:

1. Whether the Respondents are liable to pay to the
Petitioner an amount of Rs.18,60,680/- along with
interest @ 18% per annum towards outstanding
subscription dues?
2. Whether the Respondents are liable to return 600
STBs to the Petitioner or in the alternate pay an
amount of Rs.7,50,000/- @ Rs.1250/- per STB to
the Petitioner?

3. Whether R-1 has migrated to the network of R-2?
If yes, whether such migration is as per due
process of law?

8

4. Whether R-2 has any obligation towards petitioner
in the absence of any written agreement between
the parties?

16. Evidence by way of affidavit, for and on behalf of Petitioner
Company, alongwith certificate, required under Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act, got filed by Hemal Jeet Tamang,
authorized representative of Petitioner Company. The
evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Hardeep Kaur, for and on
behalf Respondent No. 2, got filed on record.

17. Written submission by Petitioner, as well as Respondent No. 2
got filed.

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.

9

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 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

10

may serve as a good basis of decision, as was propounded in M
Krishnan Vs Vijay Singh- 2001 CrLJ 4705. 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. 4
The pleadings and evidences made by Petitioner, is with
no obligation, qua Respondent No. 2, towards outstanding
subscription dues, said to be due, against Respondent No. 1, in
the tune of Rs. 18,60,680/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Sixty
Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Only). The STBs said to be
given for installation at subscriber’s end as of 600 in number,
and for which cost of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty
Thousand Only) has been claimed, were also said to be issued
to Respondent No. 1 i.e., LCO for installing at subscriber’s
premises, for making interconnect agreement entered, in
between Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 fruitful. In the
absence of any written agreement, in between, Petitioner and
Respondent No. 2, a competitive MSO, there is no Privity of
Contract, in between, Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 had vehemently argued
that, Respondent No. 2 is neither a proper, nor a necessary

11

party in the current case. Since, there is no Privity of Contract
in between, Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, as well as
precedent laid down by this Tribunal in this regard, no
obligation can be imposed against Respondent No. 2.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner was fair enough to admit
this legal proposition, and he had categorically said in the
Court, that he is not claiming any relief against Respondent No.
2. Under above settled proposition of law, and the factual
context of no Privity of Contract, in between, this issue is being
decided in favour of Respondent No. 2.

22. Issue No. 1
In view of the discussions made in Issue No. 4,
Respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay to the Petitioner, an
amount of Rs. 18,60,680/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Sixty
Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Only) alongwith interest @
18% per annum, towards outstanding subscription dues.
Rather, the Petitioner by way of its evidence affidavit has filed
Exhibit A (Colly) , copies of the Broad Resolution, dated
28.07.2017, as well as 19.01.2018, alongwith Authority Letter,
dated 01.08.2018, delegating power in favour of authorised
person, to file this Petition as well as to file evidence affidavit.
Hence, the competence of those who have filed this Petition,
and who has filed this affidavit evidence, is very well there.

12

The Interconnect Agreement/ Sheet, which was said in
Petition, has been annexed with Petition, as well as is an
annexure of affidavit evidence, where PW-1/ 1 Exhibit is the
interconnect sheet, having covenants of relationship, in
between Petitioner and Respondent No. 1. Exhibit PW- 1/2,
are the copies of some of the invoices, sent to Respondent No.
1. The affidavit evidence, is with annexure of Statement of
Account, which was annexed with Petition too, the same is
proved and exhibited, Exhibit PW-1/3. The legal notice with a
prayer for making payment of outstanding subscription dues,
and return of STBs, dated 27.06.2017, issued by Petitioner to
Respondent, has been proved and exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/
4. Hence, the contention of pleading in Petition has been fully
proved and reiterated in affidavit evidence, filed by PW-1, the
same is with no controversion. The fact pleaded in Petition,
had not been controverted by Respondent No. 1. Hence, this
has been proved in all preponderance of probabilities. Though
with regard to interest, this Tribunal in many previous decided
judgements, considering the financial and fiscal scenario of
Cable Television business, had repeatedly awarded simple
interest @ 9% per annum. Hence, this outstanding subscription
dues in the tune of Rs. 18,60,680/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs
Sixty Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Only), is to be awarded
with a simple interest @ 9% per annum pendente lite and
future from the date of Petition to actual payment date.

13

Hence, this issue is being decided in favour of Petitioner
as against Respondent No. 1.


23. Issue No. 2
Issuance of 600 STBs and non return of same has been
pleaded and proved by way of uncontroverted affidavit with
no rebuttal by Respondent No. 1 or even by Respondent No. 2,
qua Respondent No. 1.
Hence, this issue is to be decided in favour of Petitioner.
But, this Tribunal had very often decided in many precedents
that either STBs are to be returned, in good and working
condition, or the depreciated value of same is to be given. In
present case, the claim has been made @ Rs. 1250/- per STB,
with no depreciation, and admittedly the contract entered and
Petition filed in the year 2018, gives span of more than 08
years. Hence, this electronic item, may never be deemed to be
good and workable condition. Hence, in the interest of justice,
the depreciated value of those 600 STBs, are to be paid @ Rs.
1000/- per STBs, amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
Only), with simple interest of Rs. 9% per annum.
This issue is being decided in favour of Petitioner as
above.

14



24. Issue No. 3
This contention of migration by Respondent No. 1 to
Respondent No. 2, has not been controverted by Respondent
No. 1, and existence of business relationship, in between
Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, is also an undisputed
fact in reply of Respondent No. 2. Hence, the contention of
migration has been pleaded in Petition and proved by
uncontroverted affidavit, qua Respondent No. 1.
Hence, this issue is being decided in favour of Petitioner.

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

ORDER

The Petition is being decreed with cost, against
Respondent No. 1, who is being directed to make payment of
Rs. 18,60,680/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand Six
Hundred and Eighty Only), as on 20.06.2017 towards
outstanding subscription dues, alongwith pendente lite and
future interest, @ 9% Simple Interest, from the date of Petition
till actual payment of same, within two months of judgment,
for making payment to Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is further

15

being directed to make deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six
Lakhs Only), alongwith pendente lite and future interest, @ 9%
Simple Interest towards cost of 600 STBs @ depreciated value
of Rs. 1000/- per STB, within two months of judgment for
making payment to Petitioner.
Formal order / decree be got prepared by office,
accordingly.


….......………………
(Justice Ram Krishna Gautam)
Member
28.07.2026
/BN/