Source: https://advocatemmmohan.com/2017/06/15/declare-the-action-of-the-respondents-in-compelling-cable-t-v-subscribers-to-purchase-set-top-boxes-stb-for-short-and-in-threatening-cable-operators-not-to-carry-on-the-existing-analog-form-of-tra/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:13:19+00:00

Document:
declare the action of the respondents, in compelling Cable T.V. subscribers to purchase set top boxes (STB for short) and in threatening cable operators not to carry on the existing analog form of transmission with effect from the dates mentioned in the notification, as unlawful and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and to consequently direct the respondents not to stop transmission of T.V. channel signals in analog form, and to implement the digital addressable system transmission along with analog form.= Viewed from any angle, the impugned notice issued by the Government of India dated 22.12.2016, prohibiting transmission of signals in an analog form in phase III areas beyond the sunset date of 31.01.2017, does not fall foul of Section 4-A(1) of the 1995 Act as amended by Act 21 of 2011.
subscribers who are satisfied with the limited number of T.V.
31.01.2017 and, under Phase-IV upto 31.03.2017.
When the matter came up before us on 24.01.2017, Sri B.
and the cases are listed for hearing.
Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India in this regard.
Grievance Redressal Mechanism does not exist.
Coimbatore because of pending Court cases.
etc., to oversee and monitor the digitalisation process in Phase-III.
State Level Nodal Officers were held in different cities.
taken in larger public interest.
under challenge, or to dismiss the Writ Petition.
While we have not ordered the implead applications as Sri C.
should also be transferred to the Delhi High Court.
consideration in the said judgment.
contents of the Government of India notification dated 11.11.2011.
31.01.2017, to carry on analog signals in Phase III areas.
be transferred to the Delhi High Court.
Courts which were part of Transfer Petition No.430-444 of 2016.
have a set top box to receive signals in an encrypted form.
enactment and the language used therein. (Chern Taong Shang v.
Vol. 1 at 59; Doypack Systems (P) Ltd. v. Union of India ).
of the TRAI reports should be taken note of. While Sri C.
specifically refers to the TRAI report dated 05.08.2010.
for adoption of new technology.
and a subsidy scheme have been held to be crucial to this success.
the Cable operators as per their business plans.
implementation of Digital Addressable Cable TV Systems in India.
LCOs, there are practical limitations on the number of such feeds.
modulation technique employed and the nature of content.
address the issue of piracy.
the 1995 Act be amended suitably.
Chennai, by 31st March 2011.
Phase IV: In the rest of India, by 31st December 2013.
even an external aid to construction.
also to plug leakage of revenues of the State, which cable T.V.
the Statement of Objects and Reasons.
the Statement may be looked into but not otherwise.
(Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra ; A.
of affairs and the mischief sought to be remedied by the statute.
v. SDO ; Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.
Singh, 8th Edn., 2001, pp. 206-09).
and what objects he sought to achieve (Aswini Kumar Ghose v.
Bose ; M.K. Ranganathan v. Government of Madras ; A.
Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Potti ; CIT v.
Sodra Devi ; and Jai Lal v. Delhi Admn., ).
this rule has not been strictly followed in subsequent judgments.
contrary to the Constitution. In Central Bank of India v.
to the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.
statute sought to remedy. (A. Manjula Bhashini5).
India v. Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd ; Stowel v.
Lord Zouch ; A.G. v. HRH Prince Ernest Augustus ).
aid to the interpretation of statutes, the submission of Sri C.
mode of transmission of signals.
with the encrypted system i.e. DAS.
relevant provisions of the 1995 Act and the rules made thereunder.
operator, without further transmitting it to any other person.
encrypted form through a digital addressable system.
set of a particular type to receive signals of cable television network.
programmes transmitted on any channel.
and the expression “unencrypted” shall be construed accordingly.
discount allowed to the subscriber for each billing period.
years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
Government under sub-section (1) of Section 4- of the Act.
operator, and Rule 5-A to the terms and conditions for registration.
without obtaining prior permission from the Central Government.
technical aspects of the system for its smooth implementation.
signals in an encrypted form.
word only will not change its meaning.
of any channel in an encrypted form, the submission of Sri C.
unnecessarily. (Utkal Contractors and Joinery (P) Ltd.4; A.
it. (Francis Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 2nd Edn., p.
sought to be remedied thereby.
in Law, (2007) at p. 87; New India Assurance Company Ltd. v.
Limited v. Union of India ).
Rajinder Lal Capoor29; Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited30; D.
Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana ).
through the analog form of transmission of signals.
definition of an addressable system in explanation (a) to Section 4-A.
encrypted form through a digital addressable system (set top box).
form through a digital addressable system i.e. the set top box.
Sarathi in Interpretation of Statutes).
by becoming a hindrance in the interpretation of the same. (S.
Sundaram Pillai39; Hiralal Rattanlal v. State of U.P. ).
a digital addressable system (set top box).
Interpretation, 3rd Edition, page 945 to 956; Brutus v.
would not preclude us from examining its scope.
signals in one single cable.
that signals should be transmitted only in an encrypted form.
to which the enactment is directed. (Ameer Trading Corpn. Ltd. v.
(1). What was the common law before the making of the Act., (2).
Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma (Smt) v.
explanation (a) (Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers Assn. v.
circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the Statute.
so that the signal would be unintelligible without use of an addressable system.
transmission of channels by the cable operator to the broadcaster.
channels both free to air and pay channels.
same words would have been used. (Kailash Nath Agarwal v.
Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corpn. of U.P. Ltd., ; B.R.
Paul Benthall55; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V.
sending encrypted signals under DAS.
would render these penal provisions redundant and nugatory.
Tribunal at MJ Market, Nampally, Hyderabad ).
is otherwise to be treated as part of the statute and as effective.
Statutes, 11th Edition page 49-50; Hind Stone57).
operator through the analog mode of transmission or signals.
Section 11 of the 1995 Act.
not to those subscribers who choose analog form of transmission.
relates only to the channels sent in an encrypted form.
Previous Post “Orphanage or Places for Child Abuse”. – orphanages in Mahabalipuram in Tamil Nadu, run by NGOs as well as government institutions were reportedly involved in systematic sexual abuse of children. A sting operation indicated that sexual services of children were being provided to foreigners as well as Indian tourists and that the rates of children whose sexual services were being taken were fixed over telephone or in a meeting at the orphanage. = children in need of care and protection we leave these issues open for consideration and grant liberty to the learned Amicus to move an appropriate application in this regard including any application for modification or clarification of the directions given above. The Union of India is directed to communicate our directions to the concerned Ministry or Department of each State and Union Territory for implementation and to collate necessary information regarding the implementation of these directions with the assistance of the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights and the State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights. A status report in this regard should be filed in this Court on or before 15thJanuary, 2018. The Registry will list this case immediately thereafter.
Next Post “mental cruelty”= as admittedly both lived together till 2006 and the appellant gave birth to their second daughter in 2006. Third, most of the incidents of alleged cruelty pertained to the period prior to 2006 and some were alleged to have occurred after 2006. Those pertained to period after 2006 were founded on general allegations with no details pleaded such as when such incident occurred (year, month, date etc.), what was its background, who witnessed, what the appellant actually said etc.- In our view, the incidents which occurred prior to 2006 could not be relied on to prove the instances of cruelty because they were deemed to have been condoned by the acts of the parties. So far as the instances alleged after 2006 were concerned, they being isolated instances, did not constitute an act of cruelty. A petition seeking divorce on some isolated incidents alleged to have occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of the date of petition cannot furnish a subsisting cause of action to seek divorce after 10 years or so of occurrence of such incidents. The incidents alleged should be of recurring nature or continuing one and they should be in near proximity with the filing of the petition. Few isolated incidents of long past and that too found to have been condoned due to compromising behavior of the parties cannot constitute an act of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1)(ia)of the Act.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 V.