![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Sunday, Jun 15, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| New Delhi |
![]() |
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
New Delhi
New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal on Saturday asked Royal Cable Vision, Madurai, owned by M.K. Azhagiri, son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, to furnish a list of cable operators, with the number of subscribers in its fold, to enable Sun TV network to consider its request for signals of all its channels for distribution to subscribers. A Bench headed by Tribunal Chairman Justice Arun Kumar, after hearing K.K. Mani and K. Ezhil, counsel for RCV, and Ramji Srinivasan for the respondent, Channel Plus-TN, a unit of Sun network, disposed of RCV’s petition at a special sitting, observing it was premature. Mr. Mani submitted that Sun TV network was refusing to provide decoder boxes for all the Tamil channels in its network though a request was made on April 3, followed by a reminder. He said the respondent was refusing to execute the inter-connection agreement. Mr. Srinivasan submitted that RCV’s request was not in accordance with Rule 9 (2) of Inter-Connection Regulation Rules, which mandated that the MSO must furnish a list of cable operators and their subscriber base. As per rules, the respondent had 90 days to decide on the application for supply of decoders and provide signals. In its order, the Tribunal said the petitioner had failed to make a request for supply of decoders and activation thereof in terms of Rule 9 (2). If so advised, the petitioner might make a request as per Rule 9 (2), and the respondent consider this in accordance with the rules. RCV, in its petition stated that it was entitled to the signals of all channels it wanted to provide its customers. Refusal to provide them was illegal and liable for action from the Tribunal. It alleged that the respondent’s refusal was due to mala fide reasons and prayed for the tribunal’s intervention.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|