HATHWAY DIGITAL LTD vs SRISTI TELEVISION PVT. LTD

1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
th
Dated 08 July, 2026
Broadcasting Petition No. 62 of 2021

Hathway Digital Limited (Maharashtra) …Petitioner
Vs.
Sristi Television Private Limited (West Bengal) …Respondent

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER

For Petitioner : Mr. Nasir Husain, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Rohtash Kanwar , Advocate

JUDGMENT


1. This Petition, under Section 14A (1) read with Section 14 (a) (ii)
of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997,
(hereinafter referred to as “TRAI Act”), has been filed, by
Petitioner Hathway Digital Ltd., earlier known as Hathway
Digital Private Limited, a registered Company, MSO, against
Sristi Television Private Limited, Kolkata, Respondent, a

2

broadcaster Company, with a prayer for a decree in the tune of
Rs. 21,75,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Seventy Five
Thousand Only), due towards Channel promotion dues in favour
of Petitioner against Respondent, with a further prayer of
interest @ 24% per annum.

2. In brief, the Petition contends that Hathway Digital Limited,
Petitioner is a Company, incorporated under the provisions of
the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at
th
805/806 Windsor, 8 Floor of CST Kalina Road, Santa Cruz (East),
Mumbai – 98, and is engaged in retransmitting the signals of
Cable TV to its various operators on PAN India basis i.e., an MSO
engaged in the business of Distribution of Television Channels,
under the License under Cable Television Networks Act. This
Company was previously known as Hathway Digital Private
Limited and it was subsequently renamed as present one, w.e.f.,
03.06.2020.

3. Respondent Sristi Television Private Limited is a Company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its
nd
registered Office at B.K Tower, 2 Floor, 170A, A.J.C Bose Road,

3

Kolkata - 14 and is a broadcaster/ Channel Provider, which
distributes the channel namely “Sristi TV”.


4. Respondent, being desirous to promote its channel, and its
content thereof on the Petitioner’s network, had approach with
a request for same and it was accepted by Petitioner.
Accordingly, a memorandum of understanding, was got entered
in between, on 08.02.2019, under the terms and conditions
written in it, for promoting the said channel of Respondent, for
a payment of Rs. 28,80,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Eighty
Thousand Only), plus applicable taxes per annum, to be paid as
monthly advance, for a period commencing from 01.02.2019 to
31.01.2020 for the area of West Bengal, and this Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) is Annexure P-1 to Petition.

5. This MOU, dated 08.02.2019, expired, by efflux of time, on
31.01.2020. But, Respondent verbally requested the Petitioner
to continue with the arrangement/ understanding, subject to
renewal of this undertaking, because of the prevailing COVID
2019 pandemic situation. But, even after enjoying the services
of Petitioner, Respondent without any protest or demur, failed

4

to make payment of invoices made and raised against it. Rather
it made part payments only, since the very inception of
agreement. The invoices sent to Respondent are Annexure P-2
(Colly) to Petition. The Statement of Accounts, being
maintained by Petitioner, in its ordinary course of business, is
appended/ Annexed P-3 to Petition. The Respondent was
irregular in making payment and was violating the terms and
conditions of MOU, dated 08.02.2019. Petitioner requested to
clear all dues, but of no avail. Subsequently, many emails were
written and those emails dated 12.03.2020, 21.03.2020,
18.04.2020, 28.04.2020, 04.05.2020, 13.05.2020 and
09.06.2020 are Annexure P-4 (Colly) to Petition. But, owing to
failure to make the compliance and payment, or entering into a
subsequent agreement, a notice dated 14.07.2020, requesting
for clearing the outstanding dues amounting Rs. 21,75,000/-
(Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Only), was
sent and it was got served over Respondent, but no response
was there. This notice is Annexure P -5 (Colly) . Ultimately, the
notice for disconnection Annexure P-6 (Colly), dated
20.07.2020, was issued and subsequently, the disconnection

5

was made of Respondent, from its Platform on 12.08.2020, on
the ground of Non-Payment of outstanding dues. A cause of
action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction and Period of
limitation of this Tribunal. Hence, this Petition with above
prayers.

6. Reply was with denial of contention regarding the facts, post
MOU period, which expired on 31.01.2020. As per contention,
the MOU was entered, in between, the amount written in it was
agreed, payment was being made, but a balance in the tune of
Rs.4,90,960/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand Nine
Hundred Sixty Only) was there, but, owing to COVID-19
pandemic, it could not be paid. But, no agreement was in
existence after the end of previous MOU. For the alleged claim,
there is no dues beyond Rs.4,90,960/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Only), against Respondent.
The invoices raised are the emails written, may not be of any
effect for revival of agreement, unless agreed by Respondent.
No services were availed by Respondent for the said period.

6

7. The disconnection notice or cessation of relationship, is not a
correct one. Rather, relationship ended by the efflux of time,
regarding the MOU entered, in between. Hence, the prayer is
for dismissal of this Petition with regard to amount other than
Rs.4,90,960/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand Nine
Hundred Sixty Only).

8. Rejoinder cum replication is with same contention of Petition,
and negation of contention of reply.

9. Learned Registrar of this Tribunal framed following issues on
28.02.2022, on the basis of pleadings of both side:
1. Is the Petition maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the Respondent is liable to pay to the
Petitioner a sum of Rs.21,75,000/- towards
channel placement charges along with interest
@ 24% p.a.?

3. To what other relief / reliefs the Petitioner is
entitled to?

7

10. Petitioner filed its evidence, by way affidavit of Mr Rajeev
Sengupta and Respondent filed its evidence of Mr Ashok
Aggarwal.

11. Heard Learned Counsels for both side and gone through
materials placed on record.

12. 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

8

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. 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.

9

13. Issue No. 1 - From the very perusal of pleading, it is apparent
that Memorandum of Understanding, existence of relationship,
both of the parties being Telecom Service Provider, the
relationship in existence, in between, Statement of Account of
Petitioner, and the existence of dues, in the tune of Rs.
4,90,960/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred
Sixty Only), in favour of Petitioner, as against Respondent, is not
a disputed fact. Hence, this Petition is very well maintainable, in
its form, for the cause of action arisen, in between. Hence, this
issue is being decided in favour of Petitioner.

14. Issue No. 2 - The dues, as on 30.01.2020, in the tune of Rs.
4,90,960/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred
Sixty Only), is not being disputed. Rather, the Statement of
Account filed by Respondent on record, is with the same
mention of dues, on above date of cessation of previous
admitted MOU. Whereas, the Statement of Account filed by
Petitioner, is of the same fact and calculation, wherein the dues
has been shown to be of Rs. 4,75,800/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
Seventy Five Thousand Eight Hundred Only), on above date.
Hence, till 30.01.2020, the Statement of Account, is in

10

consonance with each other. The dispute is with regard to that
period till alleged disconnection, and which has been said to be
in the tune of Rs.16,99,200/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Ninety Nine
Thousand Two Hundred Only). For this the burden of proof was
upon Petitioner to prove its case, and for this, Petitioner’s
evidence, as an affidavit, coupled with the certificate, required
under Section 65B, of evidence Act, is on record. The Statement
of Account, maintained during ordinary course of business, has
been filed, and it substantiates the contention of pleading. The
affidavit filed in examination in chief is uncontroverted. Neither
an opportunity for cross examination was requested, not
availed, for testing the testimony of witness, upon anvil of cross
examination. Hence, an uncontroverted affidavit is to be taken
as it is. The same is in full reiteration of the contention of
Petition. Hence, the very basic burden of proof of its case was
exhausted by Petitioner. Now, the onus shifts towards
Respondent to prove otherwise, that there was no relationship
after the cessation of MOU i.e., 31.01.2020, in between. But, the
emails appended with the Petition, as well as with affidavit
evidence had not been replied by Respondent. The same is in

11

full consonance with the contention of Petition. The bald denial
by Respondent is there in its reply, and the same has been said
by its witness in its affidavit filed in evidence. Whereas, the
emails specified in the Petition, as well as appended with the
evidence, are with specific proof of above facts. This civil
proceeding is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities and when both sides have availed their
opportunity, of filing their evidence, then the evidence is to be
judged on above principle of preponderance of probabilities,
and on the basis of same, the case of Petitioner has been fully
proved.


15. Learned Counsel for Respondent has pressed the law laid down
by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 (109) DRJ 126(DB)(SN)
Harish Mansukhani Vs Ashok Jain, wherein, the Principle of Sales
of Goods Act, 1930, has been discussed. The facts and law
involved in present Petition is entirely other than the facts of
above alleged precedent. More so, the placement of a channel
is never required to be by any specific mandated written
agreement, as has been propounded by this Tribunal, in many

12

previous decided cases. The placement of a channel may be in
compliance of oral agreement too, which is to be inferred from
conduct of the parties. Here, the agreement started by way of
written Memorandum of Understanding; it was undisputed till
its end by efflux of time. The dispute is with regard to
subsequent six months’ relationship. Both side have advanced
their argument that this occurred owing to COVID-19 pandemic.
The Petitioner continued to place the channel of Respondent
and Respondent didn’t make the payment, even for the pre-
existing MOU period i.e., in the tune of Rs. 4,90,960/- (Rupees
Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Only). Hence,
the relation was not extinct by efflux of time, rather, it was in
continuation and no account was closed by both side. Under
above circumstances, the case of Petitioner had been fully
proved. This Issue No. 2 is being decided in favour of Petitioner.

16. Issue No. 3 - The rate of Interest was made a question in Issue
No. 2. But this Tribunal in many previous decided Judgments,
under the fiscal scenario and considering the COVID-19
pandemic period, had awarded a Simple Interest of 9% per

13

annum. Hence, the facts and circumstances of this case, permits
award of interest, as a Simple Interest @ 9% only. Accordingly,
this Petition merits to be allowed.

ORDER


This Petition is being decreed with a direction to Respondent to
make deposit within two months of the date of Judgment, the amount
of Rs. 21,75,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand
Only), towards outstanding promotion/ placement charges, for
making payment to Petitioner, alongwith a Simple Interest, pendent

lite and future, till the date of actual payment, @ 9% per annum.
Formal order / decree be got prepared by the office,

accordingly.

….......………………
(Justice Ram Krishna Gautam)
Member
08.07.2026
/NC/