HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS NXT DIGITAL LTD.) vs AJAY SHRIWAS

1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
th
Dated 09 July, 2026
Broadcasting Petition No. 329 of 2015

IndusInd Media and Communications Ltd. …Petitioner
Vs.
Ajay Shriwas (Maharashtra) & Anr …Respondent

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER

For Petitioner : Mr. Upender Thakur, Ms Vishakha U Thakur,
Ms Karishma Singh, Ms. Shreya Kardam,
Advocate
For Respondent : None

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 IndusInd Media and Communications Limited,
Andheri East, Mumbai, Petitioner, against Ajay Shriwas, Proprietor of Ajay
Cable Network, Nagpur and Siti Cable Network Limited, Respondents, with a

2

prayer for award of outstanding subscription dues in the tune of
Rs.3,15,170/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred Seventy
Only) due against Respondent No.1, and cost of 207 STBs @ 1400 per STBs,
amounting to Rs.2,89,800/- (Rupees Two Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Eight
Hundred Only), for default of making return of same and illegal swapping by
Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.2, without observing statutory
obligations, with a further prayer for grant of interest @ 18% per annum,
over above total amount of Rs.6,04,970/- (Rupees Six Lacs Four Thousand
Nine Hundred Seventy Only), till actual date of realisation, jointly and
severally against both of the Respondents.
2. In brief, the Petition contends, that Petitioner is a Multi System
Operator(MSO) operating PAN India and having one of its networks in the
city of Nagpur, Maharashtra. It receives signals of various free to air and pay
channels, from the Broadcasters, at its head ends and thereafter re-transmits
the same, to the Local Cable Operators/franchises, affiliated to it. Mr.
Devender Singh Thakur is the authorised representative, vide Board
st
Resolution, dated 21 May, 2015, which is Annexure P-1 to Petition.
3. Respondent No.1 is a proprietary firm of Ajay Shriwas, running cable business
in Nagpur city, as a Local Cable Operator (LCO) of the Petitioner.

3

4. Respondent No.2, M/s Siti Cable Network Limited (erstwhile known as Wire
and Wireless (India) Ltd), is a part of the Essel Group and is the leading Multi
System Operator, Pan India, involved in the business, as a competitive MSO
of Petitioner.
5. The Respondent No.1, being desirous to have business with Petitioner,
entered into agreement, by way of executing Standard Technical and
st
Commercial Interconnect Agreement (DAS), dated 1 January, 2014, with
rights and obligations given in this, for transmitting the transmission being
st
made by Petitioner. This agreement, dated 1 January, 2014 is Annexure P-2
to the Petition, and under clause 4.10 of this agreement, there is specific
mention of the fact that “the Set Top Boxes (STB) provided by MSO to LCO,
at all times, shall remain the exclusive property of the MSO”.

6. The Petitioner had provided 207 STBs at various scores to Respondent No.1
for installing at the subscriber’s end for fulfilling above agreement, and this
is Annexure P-3 to the Petition, wherein the cost of each of the STBs, as per
“Invoice Cum Delivery Challan” was specified to be of Rs. 1400/-, in the
documents concerning to it. But in utter disregard of 21 days’ statutory
notice, mandated under sub clause 6.4 and 6.5 of Interconnection DAS
Regulations, 2012, Respondent No.1, migrated to competitive MSO -

4

Respondent No.2 illegally. Petitioner came to know this fact of migration in
st
1 week of April, 2015, though swapping started from the end of month of
February, 2015 and was completed by March, 2015. The invoices, generated
by computer, regularly towards subscription dues, were handed over to
Respondent No.1, for making payment for it. But, the payment was always
very irregular. This is proved by way of Statement of Account, being
maintained by Petitioner, in its usual course of business, and annexed with
the Petition as Annexure P-5, wherein a total outstanding subscription due
was Rs.3,15,170/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred
Seventy Only), till March, 2015. The invoices raised were annexed with
Petition as Annexure P-4 Colly.
7. The total cost of 207 STBs was Rs.2,89,800/- @ 207x Rs.1400/-. Hence, a
cause of action had arisen, for which disconnection notice was issued, and
ultimately, signals got disconnected and this Petition got filed with above
prayer.
8. Inspite of sufficient service by way of publication into newspapers, and filing
of Affidavit of service, mentioned in the order, dated 11.04.2018 of this
Tribunal, none appeared for Respondent No.1, nor any reply got filed.

5

9. Whereas Respondent No.2 had appeared and had taken opportunity to file
reply, but had not filed reply in this particular Petition, rather the objection
was with regard to Privity of Contract, and no liability because of there being
no contract with Petitioner. Respondent No.2 is the competitive MSO, having
its own independent business, with LCOs affiliated with it.
10. The order to proceed ex-parte was there against Respondent No.1, and even
none appeared for Respondent No.1 in Evidence or argument. Hence, in this
particular Petition, the issues were not framed by Registrar. Whereas, in
another Petitions clubbed together, those were framed.
11. In this ex-parte Evidence, Petitioner filed its Affidavit Evidence of Mr. Harish
Kalyani, for and on behalf of Petitioner Company, wherein the true and
correct copy of Board of Resolution authorising this witness to depose for
company was annexed and proved as Exhibit PW-1. The true and correct
copy of agreement, executed between Petitioner and Respondent No.1,
annexed as PW-2 with Petition, was annexed with this Affidavit, and was
proved on oath, exhibiting it as PW-2. The true and correct copy of said
purchase invoice, proving the cost of STBs @ Rs.1400/- per piece, has been
filed, annexed, proved and exhibited as Exhibit PW-3. The true and correct
copy of invoices were filed and exhibited as Exhibit PW-4 (Colly). The

6

Statement of Accounts, maintained in usual course of business, by Petitioner
Company, and annexed with Petition as Annexure P-5, has been brought on
record, as Annexure of this Affidavit Evidence, and it has been proved and
exhibited as PW-5 (Colly). The same is with an Affidavit, required under
section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, specifying the source of withdrawal of
this computerised document and data, from where it was withdrawn,
making it admissible in Evidence. The demand notice, which was annexed
with Petition, had also been filed, along with this Affidavit Evidence. The
same has been exhibited.
12. The written submission by Petitioner as well as of Respondent No.2 is on
record.
13. Heard Learned Counsel for Petitioner as well as of Respondent No.2.

14. This Tribunal, in many previously decided judgements, had categorically
held that there being no privity of contract, in between, Petitioner and
competitive MSO, there is no liability of competitive MSO, towards
Petitioner, another MSO, for alleged fault of LCO, if any, as there is no
contractual relationship, no legal liability and rights, because of no contract,
in between. Competitive MSO may not be fastened with any liability. Hence,
the very argument of Respondent No.2 is tenable.

7

15. Respondent No.1 was the LCO, who had entered in agreement, who had
taken the privileges of enjoying services of Petitioner who had received the
207 STBs, as per Challan, and who was under obligation of making payments
of outstanding subscription dues, specifically proved by way of Statement of
Accounts, had neither appeared, nor filed any reply, nor given any Evidence.
Hence, the facts as were there in the Petition, and for which there was onus
to prove upon Petitioner, had been fully exhausted by Petitioner, by way of
this cogent, uncontroverted Affidavit Evidence of Petitioner. The documents,
annexed with Affidavit, are with full reiteration, and corroboration of the
contention of pleadings.
16. With regard to the rate of Interest, this Tribunal in many previously decided
Judgments, considering the current fiscal scenario, had awarded a Simple
Interest of 9% per annum. Hence, the facts and circumstances of this case,
permits award of interest, as a Simple Interest @ 9% only.

17. Hence, this Petition merits to be allowed with cost, against Respondent No.1.

8

ORDER
Upon the discussions made above, this Petition is being decreed with
cost, against Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, Ajay Shriwas, is being
mandated to make deposit in the Tribunal, within the two months of
judgment, Rs.3,15,170/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred
Seventy Only), towards outstanding subscription dues, as well as cost of 207
STBs @ 1400 per STB, amounting to Rs.2,89,800/- (Rupees Two Lacs Eighty
Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Only), for default of making return of same,
st
alongwith simple interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the 1 April,
2015 to actual date of payment, pendentelite and future, for making
payment to Petitioner, failing which the same is to be realised by way of
execution of decree.
Formal order / decree be got prepared by office, accordingly.


….......………………
(Justice Ram Krishna Gautam)
Member
09.07.2026
/SL/