Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004
Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004 |
| Front Page | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Front Page
By J. Venkatesan
By J. Venkatesan
Appearing for Taj Private (India) Ltd., senior counsel Kapil Sibal told a three-judge Bench, comprising the Chief Justice V.N. Khare, Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice S.H. Kapadia, that his client did not own the rights over the telecast signals generated from Pakistan.
He said that giving simultaneous telecast (`simulcast') feed to Doordarshan was a breach of its contract with the original telecast rights holder, Taj TV Private Ltd., Dubai. He expressed the apprehension that the live telecast would not be shown in India at all.
He wanted the court to record his submission so that in case the live telecast signals did not reach his client here tomorrow for the ODI, then it should not be held guilty of contempt of court.
"We do not want to pre-judge the issue. We will see if you are in contempt or not, on Wednesday," the Bench said and directed Prasar Bharati to deposit Rs.10 crores with the Court Registry within two days to keep alive the financial issues.
When even after 100 minutes of arguments from both sides it was not possible to pass any final order on the two Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), the Bench directed Ten Sports to provide signals to Doordarshan for tomorrow's match. The Bench told the Attorney-General, Soli Sorabjee, that Doordarshan should telecast the signals as it was without substituting its own advertisements.
The two SLPs were directed against the orders of the Madras and Bombay High Courts, which had directed the company to give signals to Doordarshan for the match. On an undertaking from Ten Sports, the same Bench had on Friday asked Doordarshan to telecast the match held on Saturday.
Earlier, Mr. Sibal submitted that the right to telecast the sports events in Pakistan was acquired for five years by the Dubai-based Taj TV Ltd., of which Taj Private (India) Ltd. was the distributor in India. Ten Sports was only a brand name, not the owner of the company, and had, therefore, no locus standi in this present dispute. Taj Private (India) Ltd., he said, in turn transmitted the signals to Modi Entertainment, which was the distributor for cable networks.
Mr. Sibal said that Taj TV entered into an agreement to acquire the beaming rights from the Pakistan Cricket Board on a payment of $50 million, at a time when the India-Pakistan cricket series was "not even thought of." He contended that the contractual rights of his client could not be taken away on the strength of public interest litigation petitions filed before the Madras and Bombay High Courts.
He, however, agreed that in the interest of viewers, Ten Sports would relay the signals, free of cost only to 200 low-power transmitters in areas where there were no cable operators. But it would not give signals to the remaining 900 transmitters located in the metropolitan cities where cable operators had deep penetration.
Mr. Sibal also brought to the Court's notice Doordarshan's "mischief" in telecasting its own advertisements during the Karachi match on Saturday after receiving the signals free of cost from Ten Sports and thereby earning Rs. 10 crores and another Rs. 2.5 crores on Sunday through the repeat telecast.
Mr. Sorabjee, appearing for the Centre, and the Solicitor-General, Kirit Raval, appearing for Prasar Bharati, submitted that the Government had agreed to pay $10 million to Ten Sports for the 40-day event. This offer was not accepted as Ten Sports insisted on a payment of $25 million.
Mr. Harish Salve, appearing for Modi Entertainment, which distributed the signals from Ten Sports to the cable operators, said that "simulcast" of signals would ruin them.
If the signals were allowed to be provided freely, then cable operators with whom his client had entered into agreements might not use the cable signals, instead they would use the free signals beamed by Doordarshan. In that event, the whole contract with Ten Sports for distribution would collapse.
Since counsel for the parties took extreme positions, the Bench found it difficult to work out an agreement. The Attorney-General cited the legal proposition that no one could be allowed to use the airwaves of India disregarding the interest of 90 million viewers. The Bench directed listing of the case for further hearing on March 17. The third one-day match is to be played on March 19.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2004, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
