| IMCL
had filed four separate petitions against the distributors - City Cable, In Cable
Communication, Sai Ganesh Enterprise, and Satekrishmani Network – and in
each of the petitions, Scod 18 had been mentioned as a co-respondent. These
are Mumbai-based distributors of IMCL since 1999, tribunal documents showed. The
four distributors had recently formed a new multi-system operator (MSO) called
Scod 18 Networking Pvt Ltd, which was later acquired by Digital Outsourcing, a
subsidiary of You Telecom. The
four distributors switched off the IMCL feed on 12 April. Signals of Scod 18,
which claims to have agreements with operators, replaced the IMCL feed. It
was one of the most fiercely contested battles in Tdsat this year so far, and
arguments went on for more than two hours. Two major issues in the case were discussed
today. The
distributors argued that being IMCL’s agents, and not cable operators, they
did not come under the ambit of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act,
but IMCL argued that they did. On
hearing both parties, the tribunal held that under the 10th December (2004) Regulation
as amended by the 4th September (2006) Regulation, the distributors indeed came
under the Act, a judicial action that experts here said would have long term impact
in cases involving distributors. The
court then examined the second issue: that if indeed the four companies are distributors
of IMCL, and though they may have formed a new MSO, did these distributors give
a 21-day notice before switching off the feed of IMCL? The
court finally ruled that there was no evidence that a valid notice had been issued,
and indeed, the parties had not even responded by way of an affidavit to the allegations
made in court by IMCL. The
court had asked the distributors to file their affidavits when it heard the case
for the first time on 22 April, but there has been no response so far. The
second plea of some of the distributors was that they were not connected to Scod
18. However, the court noted that documents filed by these distributors themselves
revealed that they were not only directly connected to Scod 18, but were promoters
of the new MSO. Though
there was averment to Scod 18 in the petitions and their lawyer argued in the
case today, the interim order today is restricted to the distributors. But the
distributors would now have to reconnect with IMCL and not give Scod 18 signals.
The
hearing in the case will resume on 28 May, the court said. | 
