HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS NXT DIGITAL LTD.) vs MANOJ R.RAMARAO SANAPAL

1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
rd
Dated 23 July,2026
Broadcasting Petition No. 328 of 2015

Hinduja Global Solutions Limited …Petitioner
Vs.
Manoj R RamaraoSanapal 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 - IndusInd

2

Media and Communications Ltd., against Manoj R
RamaraoSanapal, proprietary firm of Manoj R RamaraoSanapal
running Cable business in Nagpur city, 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. 6,17,597/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Seven Only), billed
upto 31.03.2015, with pendente lite and future interest, @18%
per annum, till realization, with a further prayer for a direction to
make payment of Rs. 6,98,600/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Eight
Thousand Six Hundred Only), towards cost of 499 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

3

networks, for reception by multiple subscribers, i.e. , the
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 21.05.2015, 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 Manoj R
RamaraoSanapal, 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

4

transmitted by Petitioner to Respondent No. 1, and this
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 499 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.

5

2, by 31.03.2015. Hence, both of the Respondents, are severally
as well as jointly, liable to make the payment of cost of all 499
STBs, i.e. Rs. 6,98,600/- @ 499 * 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. 6,17,597/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventeen
Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Seven 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. 6,17,597/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Seven 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. 6,98,600/- (Rupees Six
Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Six Hundred 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. 499 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, 490 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 499 STBs being claimed in Petition, 490 STBs were
returned by this Respondent No. 1. Thereby, the number of STBs
remained to be pending with Respondent No. 1 were 9. Hence,
the claim in this head was prayed for 9 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 Manoj
R Ramarao Sanapal.

17. Written submission by Petitioner got filed. On the date of
hearing, none appeared for Respondent No. 1, and owing to

12

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 626
that where both parties have already produced whatever

13

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. Hon’ble Apex Court in
Raghvamma Vs. A Cherry Chamma – AIR 1964 SC 136 has

14

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
compliance of TRAI Regulations i.e., there is no contention by
Respondent No. 1, that it disconnected the Petitioner’s signal in

15

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 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

16

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 499 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.

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

17

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. 6,17,597/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventeen
Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Seven Only), due till March, 2015
against Respondent No. 1. As against this contention, the reply
of Respondent No. 1 is with specific 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

18

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 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. 6,17,597/- (Rupees Six Lakhs

19

Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Seven Only), against
Respondent No. 1. Hence, for this, Petitioner is entitled to receive
from Respondent No. 1.
The 9 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 9 STBs are to be awarded against Respondent No.
1, in favour of Petitioner.
Accordingly, the total outstanding subscription
dues, in the tune of Rs. 6,17,597/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventeen
Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Seven Only) alongwith the cost of
depreciated value/cost of 9 STBs @ Rs.1000/-, amounting to Rs.
9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) is also to be awarded in
favour of Petitioner. The Pendente lite and future 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

20

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.


23. Issue No. 3
The very contention of making payment of security amount, by
Respondent No. 1, for issue of those 499 STBs is not
substantiated because of the return of 490 STBs by Respondent
No. 1, through Advocate Commissioner to Petitioner. More so,
the alleged covenant of security etc., is not there in the

21

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, Manoj R RamaraoSanapal, is being
directed to make deposit of Rs. 6,17,597/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Seven Only), towards
outstanding subscription dues, upto 31.03.2015 and Rs. 9,000/-
(Rupees Nine Thousand Only) towards depreciated cost of 9 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

22

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/