TDSAT Decrees Rs 29.97 Lakh Placement Fee Against Direct News for News X Channel Carriage

TDSAT held the second placement agreement binding on Direct News, rejecting its denial of the contract and awarding Rs 29.97 lakh with 9% simple interest to MSO N K Infocom.

The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, on 5 May 2026, decreed Broadcasting Petition No. 239 of 2014 in favour of N K Infocom, a Multi System Operator, directing Direct News Private Limited — formerly INX News Private Limited — to deposit Rs 29,97,387 as outstanding placement fees for carrying the “News X” channel on the petitioner's cable network. The Tribunal also awarded simple interest at 9% per annum from the pendente lite period until actual payment. The petition had been filed under Section 14 read with Section 14A of the TRAI Act, 1997. The central contest was whether a second placement agreement, covering the period 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012, was ever concluded between the parties — a question the Tribunal resolved against the respondent broadcaster on the preponderance of probabilities.

The Placement Dispute: Two Agreements, One Contested

N K Infocom, a cable television service provider registered under Section 3 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, carried the News X channel on its network under an initial agreement dated 7 May 2010, effective from 20 March 2010 to 31 July 2011. That first agreement was undisputed. Direct News acknowledged it and admitted paying Rs 33,31,060 towards placement fees for that period.

The dispute arose over a second agreement said to cover 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012. N K Infocom contended that this agreement was signed by it and sent to the respondent for counter-signature, but the respondent never returned a signed copy despite repeated requests. The petitioner continued placing the News X channel on its network throughout this second period, raised invoices, and eventually issued a legal notice on 31 December 2012 demanding Rs 29,97,387 in accumulated placement dues. The respondent neither replied to the notice nor made any payment.

Direct News denied the second agreement entirely. It characterised the document as a unilateral offer signed only by the petitioner, never accepted by the respondent, and argued that the petitioner's continued placement of the channel was a voluntary act creating no liability. The respondent also raised two preliminary objections: that the petition was not maintainable because N K Infocom was an unregistered proprietorship firm, and that the claim was barred by a three-year limitation period.

Preliminary Objections: Maintainability and Limitation

On the maintainability question, the Tribunal noted that the respondent's own counsel did not press the objection at the hearing. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar and Another (AIR 1999 SC 1484), the Tribunal held that a suit by or against a proprietary concern is effectively a suit by or against the proprietor. Registration status was therefore irrelevant. The objection was decided in favour of the petitioner.

On limitation, the Tribunal found that the cause of action arose when the petitioner deactivated the channel following non-response to the legal notice of 31 December 2012, and the petition was filed in 2014. The respondent's witness admitted in cross-examination that his knowledge of the limitation plea came only from counsel's advice, not from any independent factual basis. The objection was again not pressed and was decided in favour of the petitioner.

The Second Agreement: Stamp Paper, Emails, and Employee Admissions

The Tribunal took Issues 3 and 6 together, examining whether the second placement agreement was binding and whether emails sent by one Mr Gaurav Kohli were sent on behalf of the respondent.

The petitioner's witness deposed that the reverse side of the non-judicial stamp paper used for the second agreement bore the seal of the respondent as the purchaser of that paper. This, the petitioner argued, showed that the respondent itself had procured the stamp paper for the second agreement, intending to continue the News X channel on the petitioner's platform after 31 July 2011.

The respondent's counter was that Mr Gaurav Kohli, who had exchanged emails appearing to acknowledge the second agreement, was neither an employee nor an authorised agent of the respondent company. The respondent further alleged that Mr Kohli, aware of an impending management takeover, had colluded with the petitioner to create a false liability for the incoming management.

The Tribunal found this defence unsupported by evidence. The respondent's sole witness, Mr Aman Thukral, had joined the company on 4 September 2012 — after the disputed agreement period ended on 31 July 2012. His appointment letter was dated 16 August 2012. He admitted in cross-examination that his knowledge of the matter came entirely from company documents handed to him, and that he had no personal knowledge of events during the disputed period.

Critically, Mr Thukral admitted in answer to Question 23 that one Mr Anuj, to whom the petitioner had written emails on 19 May 2012, 9 January 2012, and 6 January 2012, was an employee of the respondent company. He similarly admitted in answer to Question 24 that Mr Praveer Gaur, another email recipient, was also a respondent company employee. He further admitted that because these emails pre-dated his own joining, he was unaware of them. The Tribunal found that Mr Gaurav Kohli's status as an employee of the company that was subsequently restructured into the present respondent was not effectively disputed.

On the stamp paper point, the Tribunal held that the respondent's admission — through its witness — of the stamp proving purchase of the stamp paper by the respondent company, combined with the writing of the agreement's covenants and the petitioner's signature over it, showed that the offer had been acted upon. The channel had been placed on the agreed spectrum, as it had been during the undisputed first agreement period. Both Issues 3 and 6 were decided in favour of the petitioner.

Default in Payment and Correctness of Ledger

On Issues 4 and 5, the Tribunal examined whether the respondent had defaulted in payment and whether the petitioner's statement of account was correct. The petitioner's witness filed an affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, attesting to the genuineness of electronically generated documents maintained in the ordinary course of business. The Tribunal found no material variance or contradiction in the petitioner's cross-examination.

The respondent's witness, having joined after the disputed period, had no personal knowledge to contradict the ledger. The Tribunal noted that the ledger filed by the respondent itself reflected payments for the undisputed first agreement period, followed by the subsequent dues. Both ledgers were held to be correct, and the respondent was found to have defaulted on placement charges for the second agreement period. The outstanding sum was confirmed at Rs 29,97,387.

Interest Rate: 18% Sought, 9% Awarded

The petitioner had sought interest at 18% per annum. The Tribunal declined that rate. Referring to its practice in multiple decided petitions and the prevailing financial and fiscal scenario, the Tribunal awarded simple interest at 9% per annum, running from the pendente lite period through to the actual date of payment.

Order

The Tribunal decreed the petition with costs. Direct News Private Limited was directed to deposit Rs 29,97,387 — along with accrued simple interest at 9% per annum from the pendente lite period until actual payment — with the Tribunal within two months of the judgment, for onward payment to N K Infocom. The order provided that in case of default, the amount would be realised through the legal procedure. All interim orders and miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of. The office was directed to prepare a formal decree accordingly.