No contempt by Lytus Sri Sai or GTPL, but TDSAT charges assets moving to GTPL with Zee Rs 14.39 crore dues
TDSAT held wilful disobedience of its status quo order unproved against Lytus Sri Sai Networks, its directors and GTPL Hathway, but ordered undertakings within three weeks and a charge on any operator assets GTPL took over after 24 July 2026 to secure the Zee claim.
The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has declined to punish M/s Lytus Sri Sai Networks Private Limited, five of its directors or GTPL Hathway Limited for disobeying its status quo order in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited's ₹14,39,17,332 subscription dues petition, holding that Zee's own pleadings showed the subscriber migration it complained of was under way before the order and that the order never specified what status was to be maintained. In a judgment of 16 October 2026 on Zee's application under Sections 19 and 20 of the TRAI Act, 1997, Justice Ram Krishna Gautam, Member, still secured the claim: the operator and its directors must file affidavits within three weeks undertaking to meet the amount if decreed, and any operator assets GTPL acquired, took over or swapped after 24 July 2026 stand charged with it.
₹14.39 crore and a feared migration
Zee filed Broadcasting Petition No. 223 of 2026 on 24 July 2026 against Lytus Sri Sai Networks, a cable multi-system operator, and its directors as Respondents 2 to 6. Paragraph 12 of the petition put the dues at ₹14,36,35,347 for digital cable subscription and ₹2,81,985 for IPTV subscription as on 21 July 2026, including the July 2026 invoices, under two subscription agreements. Zee had served a disconnection notice under Regulation 17 of the Interconnection Regulations, 2017 on 24 October 2025 and another on 8 June 2026. It sought a decree for the full amount with 18 per cent contractual interest, a declaration that the operator was in breach of the TRAI regulations and its DAS licence, a permanent bar on its receiving Zee's signals, attachment of its bank account, and a restraint on its directors and shareholders joining any other cable business.
The interim prayers reveal the apprehension. Zee pleaded that after the June disconnection notice the operator, in collusion with a third-party MSO, had started or was in the process of retransmitting Zee's channels by being taken over by a larger distribution platform operator, and that it was swapping subscribers' set-top boxes to another MSO without clearing the dues. An email of 18 July 2026 showed the respondents in talks with another MSO. Swapping boxes while still taking Zee's signals, the petition said, would end with the competing MSO taking over the operator's conditional access system, subscriber management system and other head-end equipment, which the TRAI regulations do not permit. Zee also relied on Clause 18.5 of its subscription agreement, which it said required the broadcaster's prior written consent to any takeover.
Two orders in four days
The petition was listed on 24 July 2026 before Court No. 1 while still carrying registry defects, under Diary No. 486 of 2026. The Tribunal issued notice and, ex parte, directed the respondent to maintain status quo as on 23 July 2026 and restrained it from receiving Zee's signals from other MSOs directly or indirectly, until the next date. On 27 July 2026 the Tribunal allowed Zee's application (M.A. No. 205 of 2026) to implead GTPL Hathway as Respondent 7, finding it a necessary party that would be affected by the outcome, admitted the petition, issued notice on admission and interim relief to all respondents including GTPL, listed the matter for 27 August 2026, and continued the interim order.
What Zee said happened next
Zee's application, M.A. No. 213 of 2026, asked the Tribunal to hold the operator guilty of wilful disobedience of the orders of 24 and 27 July, impose the Section 20 penalty, direct GTPL to disconnect its feed to the operator, order payment of the ₹14,39,17,332, attach the respondents' receivables, summon directors 2 to 6 in person, and have the local sub-divisional magistrate seize the operator's head-end equipment.
Its evidence was threefold. The MSO Login option on the operator's website, now rebranded under Lytus as Sri Sai Communications, redirected to GTPL's login page, and Zee demonstrated this in open court on 27 July. Recordings at 8:40 a.m. and 1:05 p.m. on 24 July showed the operator's feed carrying all of Zee's channels on viewing card number 01738087789, a card Zee had allotted to A.C.N. Cable Private Limited. And ACN, Zee said, had been taken over by GTPL: in June 2023 GTPL signed a business transfer agreement for the cable business of seven ACT Group entities including ACN, and on 13 July 2026 GTPL emailed Zee that its arrangement with ACN took effect from 1 July 2026, asking for the equipment and security deposit to be transferred to GTPL while ACN remained liable for earlier dues. From this Zee inferred that GTPL had either assumed control of the operator's CAS, SMS, CAM and DRM or was running its migration, and that the operator was retransmitting Zee's channels through ACN's network in the Siddipet area of Telangana in breach of its subscription agreement, the Interconnection Regulations and the Copyright Act. Zee sent a cease and desist notice on 30 July, which GTPL denied, and disconnected the operator on 31 July 2026.
The directors and GTPL answer
The operator itself filed no reply despite service. Palle Srinivas and Palle Sunitha, Respondents 2 and 3, said nothing personal was alleged against them, that an order to maintain status quo without saying what the status was imposed no specific obligation, that the allegations ran against the company and GTPL, and that he had since been removed as managing director and she had ceased to be a director. Mundigonda Sai Ramakrishna and Hanish Dinesh Talsania, Respondents 4 and 6, described themselves as investor-nominee directors with no access to the company's bank, SMS or CAS records, which were controlled by Respondent 2, managing director under an agreement of 1 August 2024 and sole bank signatory, and Respondent 3. Talsania had resigned as a non-executive director on 7 August 2026; Ramakrishna still held office. They added that NCLT proceedings concerning the company were pending.
GTPL said it was a pan-India MSO with a valid interconnection agreement with Zee, under which it filed monthly subscriber reports and paid Zee's invoices. It was a stranger to the subscription agreement between Zee and the operator, was not a party when the 24 July order was passed, and received no direction on 27 July beyond continuation of an order addressed to others. There had been no takeover, merger or acquisition. Well before 24 July it had reached an understanding with the operator, which was embroiled in internal management disputes, to serve its subscribers; it had on-boarded the operator's local cable operators and would pay Zee for those subscribers from the date of addition, with the operator's past dues remaining the operator's alone. GTPL also produced a legal notice of 7 August 2026 from Respondents 4 to 6 making the same allegations as Zee, to suggest that the petition was proceeding in concert with those directors.
Section 20, Section 19 and the powers of a civil court
The Tribunal set out its powers. Section 19 of the TRAI Act makes its orders executable as decrees of a civil court, by the Tribunal itself or by transfer to a civil court; that was not yet in play, because no decree had been passed. Section 20 makes wilful failure to comply with a Tribunal order punishable with a fine of up to ₹1 lakh, ₹2 lakh for a second or subsequent offence, and up to ₹2 lakh for every day a contravention continues. Section 16 frees the Tribunal from the Code's procedure while giving it a civil court's powers, so it tries a Section 14 dispute as a civil suit and the injunction provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 apply; the 24 July order had been granted under that power. Justice Gautam noted Union of India v. Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd, (2007) 7 SCC 517, the Tribunal's own decision in Mahadev Cable Net v. Star India that Section 20 exists so that its decisions are not flouted, and the full bench ruling in SCOD 18 Networking v. United Cable Services that contempt references under Article 215 are to be used sparingly, with Section 20 the appropriate route. None of this was in dispute.
Why wilful disobedience was not proved
The findings turned on timing. The 24 July order was passed on a defective petition that was numbered and admitted only on 27 July, and it froze matters as on 23 July without stating what the position on that date was. Zee's own petition pleaded that the swapping and retransmission through a larger DPO had already started when the 8 June disconnection notice issued and were continuing; paragraph 3 of the application repeated the same apprehension. The GTPL login on the operator's website was demonstrated in court on 27 July, at the impleadment hearing, so GTPL's presence there predated its joinder. Zee had admitted the June 2023 business transfer agreement and the 13 July 2026 email about ACN, both well before the petition was filed. On that record, the Tribunal held, no wilful disobedience was proved against GTPL, which was added only on 27 July, and the allegations against the operator and its directors, some of whom had pleaded that they had maintained status quo, were equally unproved for the purposes of Section 20.
Securing the claim, and the Order
Nobody had denied that ₹14,39,17,332 had arisen as a liability of the operator, and the main relief in the petition was a simple money recovery with interest; the injunctions were sought to make that recovery effective. The Tribunal held it had full jurisdiction to pass orders “ensuring that its Judgment or Order may not become futile”.
It directed Respondents 1 to 6 to file, within three weeks, undertakings by affidavit assuring realisation of ₹14,39,17,332 with interest, should Zee obtain a decree in the main petition. GTPL is not responsible for the operator's dues accrued before the order of 27 July 2026. But any retransmission arrangement, head-end equipment, set-top boxes swapped with local cable operators, or other movable or immovable assets of the operator that GTPL acquired, took over or swapped after the order of 24 July 2026 carry a charge for the assured amount. GTPL must file details of those assets, and Respondents 1 to 6 must specify the operator's properties and assets. Failure by any of them “will be taken as a deliberate defiance” and dealt with under Section 20. The application was disposed of in these terms.