A broadcaster may recover proven subscription arrears from an MSO under the subscription agreement.

The broadcaster, originally Sony Pictures Networks India Private Ltd. and later substituted by Culver Max Entertainment Private Ltd., sought recovery of ₹47,39,820 in unpaid subscription charges from MSO Multicity Digital Consortium Private Ltd. under a subscription agreement dated 25 February 2019, covering Tamil Nadu and later expanded to Karnataka.

The broadcaster relied on invoices and statements of account and stated that it disconnected the signals after issuing notice for non-payment.

The MSO disputed liability, alleging discriminatory pricing, unlawful OTT distribution and signal provision, and disputing extensions of the agreement; it produced no payment records or documentary evidence substantiating those defences.

The Tribunal framed issues concerning recovery with interest, restraint on receiving the broadcaster’s signals, alleged regulatory or licensing violations, and other relief.

Respondents 6 and 7 were deleted from the proceedings.

1. Whether the broadcaster was entitled to recover ₹47,39,820 from Respondent No. 1, with interest at 18% per annum.

2. Whether the broadcaster was entitled to an order restraining the respondent from receiving its channels’ signals.

3. Whether the respondent had violated licensing terms or TRAI regulations so as to defeat or affect the broadcaster’s claim.

4. What other relief, if any, the broadcaster was entitled to.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997; it also treated the parties as “service providers” within Section 2(j).

Applying civil standards of proof, the Tribunal held that the claimant bears the initial burden of proving its case on a preponderance of probabilities; the evidential onus may shift as evidence is produced, although the legal burden remains on the party asserting the relevant fact.

It relied on Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1971, and referred to Premlata v. Arhant Kumar Jain, AIR 1976 SC 626, Laxman v. Venkateswarloo, AIR 1949 PC 278, State of J&K v. Hindustan Forest Co., (2006) 12 SCC 198, and Raghvamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136.

The parties’ subscription agreement and the 2017 Interconnection Regulations informed the contractual and regulatory context.

The Tribunal awarded simple pendente lite and future interest at 9% per annum, consistent with its stated approach in previous cases.

The Tribunal found that the agreement, the subsequent extension and the addition of Karnataka to the service area were established on the evidence, including the parties’ correspondence and the broadcaster’s invoices and account statements.

The broadcaster’s evidence of unpaid dues was not met by account statements or proof of payment from the respondent.

The respondent’s allegations of discriminatory treatment, unlawful OTT distribution, direct signal provision and licensing or regulatory breaches were unsupported by documentary evidence or identified regulatory provisions; the Tribunal therefore found them insufficient to displace the contractual claim.

It held that the asserted losses from LCOs and unreturned set-top boxes were not a defence to the broadcaster’s claim under the subscription agreement.

The restraint issue became infructuous following deletion of Respondents 6 and 7, and no other relief was established.

It declined the claimed 18% rate, found the signal-restraint issue infructuous, and directed that the amount be realised through execution in the event of default.