The cable operator said in its defence that Sony sells the same channels on its own app for 999 rupees a year
Justice Ram Krishna Gautam decreed the Sony petition with costs, holding that grievances about direct-to-consumer pricing by a broadcaster do not answer an admitted and never-disputed subscription liability.
A multi-system operator that stopped paying Sony's subscription invoices argued, in its defence, that Sony was selling the same channels directly to viewers on SonyLIV for ₹999 a year — about ₹333 a month across three devices — which is a fraction of what it was charging the cable operator for the same content. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has decreed the petition with costs, ordering the operator and its four directors to deposit ₹47,39,820 with interest at 9 per cent.
The market and the conduct
Culver Max Entertainment, formerly Sony Pictures Networks India, entered a subscription agreement with Multicity Digital Consortium on 25 February 2019, authorising it to re-transmit Sony's signals in the digital addressable system areas of Tamil Nadu. The agreement was renewed from time to time. On 9 June 2020 the operator asked for the authorised territory to be widened to include Karnataka, and Sony agreed by letter of 12 June. From that date the operator carried Sony's channels in both States.
Signals continued without disruption, invoices went out monthly, and they were delivered and received. At no point did the operator raise any dispute about any invoice.
It simply did not pay. After repeated requests, Sony issued a disconnection notice on 26 February 2021 under the Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017. The dues were still not cleared, and signals were cut off on 3 April 2021. By then the outstanding subscription charges stood at ₹41,72,109 for Tamil Nadu and ₹5,67,711 for Karnataka.
The defence: your own app undercuts us
The operator's answer was not that the invoices were wrong. It was that the whole commercial arrangement had been made unviable by the broadcaster's own conduct.
The centrepiece was SonyLIV. For ₹999 a year a subscriber can watch all Sony programming on up to three devices at once — mobile phones, laptops, televisions and tablets — which works out at about ₹333 a month per device, far below what the operator was being charged to carry the same channels. The operator went further and said the broadcaster had no permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to distribute its signals directly to ultimate subscribers, so the direct distribution was itself unlawful.
Alongside that it alleged a tilted field: fixed-fee agreements between the broadcaster and the large rival multi-system operators, which it said created non-level playing conditions for smaller operators like itself. It also complained that the broadcaster had put its own employees and local sales representatives into door-to-door marketing of SonyLIV among subscribers.
The consequence, on its case, was that its own local cable operators stopped paying it, leaving roughly ₹24,00,00,000 outstanding — about ₹3,00,00,000 in subscription fees and ₹21,00,00,000 in the cost of set-top boxes never returned — and that its business closed. It put its balance sheet on the record in support.
Why the OTT argument failed
The operator's strongest-sounding point was that the broadcaster needed a licence from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to send its channels straight to viewers, and had none — so the direct distribution was unlawful and the interconnect agreement itself was void.
The Tribunal rejected it on the ground that over-the-top services sit outside the regime altogether. They are not within the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, nor within the downlinking guidelines, so no licence from the Ministry is required for them. "Broadcasting service" under the Act and under the 2017 interconnection regulations is confined to broadcast signals carried by satellite or cable, and an OTT application is something different in kind from the re-transmission of television signals by a multi-system operator.
The affirmative source of the right is the Copyright Act. The broadcast reproduction right under Section 37 entitles the broadcaster to communicate the broadcast signal of its channels either itself or through third parties, and that right is absolute and unrestricted, subject only to compliance with such obligations as may be prescribed. Putting its own channels on its own application is consistent with it.
That disposes of the pricing comparison as well. If the broadcaster is entitled to run a direct service, the price it charges on that service is not a defence to what a cable operator agreed to pay under a separate contract for a different kind of distribution.
The regulatory test
The Tribunal did not treat the commercial grievance as an answer to the contractual claim. The agreement was admitted. Signals were supplied under it and were received and re-transmitted. Invoices were raised monthly in accordance with it and were never disputed when they arrived. The relationship between the parties is governed by the interconnection regulations and by the reference interconnect offer agreement executed under them, and the liability to pay the subscription fee arises from that framework.
The complaints about SonyLIV pricing, about ministry permissions, and about fixed-fee deals with rival operators are, in substance, allegations about the broadcaster's conduct in other markets and other contracts. They do not convert an admitted and unchallenged subscription liability into a disputed one, and the operator did not plead them as a counterclaim quantified against the sum demanded. Whatever its local cable operators owed it, that is a matter between the operator and them.
Two further strands of the defence were held to be afterthoughts. The operator said its local cable operators had migrated to other multi-system operators without clearing their dues to it; the Tribunal found the contention untenable, without basis and unsupported by evidence, noting that at no point had the operator ever raised a complaint with the broadcaster, whether about this or about unsatisfactory signal quality. It had simply availed the services under the agreement. The allegation of discrimination between operators fared the same way: the operator had not issued even a single communication to the broadcaster on the subject, and had entered into the reference interconnect agreement of its own volition.
There is also a pleading problem running through the defence. The operator disputed the receipt of the invoices and the raising of them, yet, as the replication pointed out, nothing in the reply actually denied that the sum of ₹47,39,820 was payable under the subscription agreement.
On the fourth issue, concerning any other relief, the Tribunal recorded that none was prayed for by the petitioner or otherwise claimed.
Outcome
The petition was decreed with costs. The operator, through its directors, who were respondents two to five, was directed to deposit ₹47,39,820 with the Tribunal within two months of the judgment, as outstanding subscription dues.
Simple interest runs on that principal at 9 per cent a year, pendente lite and future, from the date of the petition to the date of actual payment, and the money is to be paid over to the petitioner. In default it will be realised through the ordinary process of execution. A formal decree was directed to be drawn up.
The petition was filed in 2021 and decided on 12 October 2026, so the interest component runs over more than five years.