The Supreme Court has recently rejected the civil appeal of cable operator Moon Network Limited against the order of February 27, 2025 of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) which had ruled in favour of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited.
The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan said it is not inclined to interfere in the matter after hearing appellant’s senior counsel Ritin Rai and respondent counsel Upender Thakur. The bench then dismissed the civil appeal.
Moon Network, the appellant, contended in the Supreme Court that the civil appeal arises because the TDSAT had notably failed to appreciate that there was no agreement between the parties for supply and retransmission of television channels and a quasi contract was not permissible in view of Regulation 10(21) of the consolidated Telecommunication (Broadcasting And Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017. The regulations stipulated that any renewal / extension of an agreement was to be made in writing and prior to the expiration of the existing agreement.
TDSAT had ruled in Zee’s favour when it dismissed a review application filed by Moon Network over an outstanding payment amounting to Rs 1.18 crore which was decreed in favour of Zee Entertainment following a judgment delivered on April 20, 2022.
The case begins in 2016 when the appellant undertook to distribute Zee channels through digital addressable cable systems from November 1 that year to March 31, 2017 in Agra, Firozabad and Shikohabad. Under the agreement, it was to pay Rs 75 lakh to Zee for the same. The agreement expired after the period elapsed but Zee did not stop broadcasting the channels until later.
By then the appellant had signed another contract with Turner International for supplying its channels in the same areas for Rs 9.45 lakh. The contract had no role for Zee.
Zee moved a broadcasting petition in TDSAT on November 22, 2017 for the payment of Rs 1.18 crore for both deals, the one involving itself and the other involving Turner. It now claimed it was Turner’s agent and sought compensation for its own channels from April 1, 207 to June 12, 2017 and the Turner channels for the same period but didn’t implead Turner in the petition.
TDSAT allowed the petition in April 2022 holding the appellant erroneously guilty. The review petition moved by the appellant was also struck down by TDSAT in February this year necessitating it to move the Supreme Court.