Introduction

The case of Siti Network Ltd. v. Roshan Cable Network And Another adjudicated by the Telecom Disputes Settlement And Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) on November 9, 2021, addresses critical issues surrounding the inclusion of competing Multi-System Operators (MSOs) in litigation concerning interconnection agreements. The petitioner, Siti Network Ltd., sought to maintain its monopoly and exclusive presence in a particular market area, alleging that Roshan Cable Network, as a competing MSO, was unlawfully involved in contractual disputes that could undermine Siti Network's market position. The primary legal contention revolves around whether Roshan Cable Network should be a party to the litigation, given the lack of direct contractual obligations with Siti Network and the regulatory framework governing interconnection.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tribunal examined the application by respondent No. 2 (Roshan Cable Network) seeking deletion from the lawsuit filed by the petitioner (Siti Network Ltd.). The petitioner alleged that Roshan Cable Network was being unfairly implicated due to being a competing MSO without any direct contractual relationship. After a thorough analysis of relevant precedents and regulatory provisions, the Tribunal concluded that Roshan Cable Network had no legal or contractual obligation towards Siti Network that would necessitate its inclusion in the litigation. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the petitioner's request to delete Roshan Cable Network from the list of respondents, thereby protecting the latter from undue harassment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Tribunal referenced several key precedents to substantiate its decision:

• B.P. No. 211 of 2020 and B.P. 122 of 2020: Recent Tribunal orders that established the obligation of MSOs under Interconnect Regulations to provide signals to Locational Cable Operators (LCOs) on a non-exclusive basis, influencing the decision to allow deletion of Roshan Cable Network.
• B.P. No. 274 of 2016 and B.P. No. 594 of 2018: Earlier orders that did not fully consider regulatory provisions, thus favoring a more regulated approach in subsequent decisions.
• Solan Sat TV v. Star DEN Media [Petition No. 258(C)) of 2011]: A Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in cases involving multiple MSOs and broadcast entities.
• Sita Ram v. Balbir Alias Bali (2017) 2 SCC 456: An Apex Court ruling on contempt of court, which clarified the scope of third-party liability, deemed not directly applicable as the Tribunal operates under the TRAI Act's provisions.
• Krishna Gupta v. Narendra Nath (2017 SCC OnLine DEL 10990): Delhi High Court judgment relating to injunctions under CPC, also determined to be irrelevant due to the Tribunal's distinct jurisdiction.
• Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 417: Supreme Court case discussing the concept of dominus litis, affirming that the plaintiff controls the parties involved, but found not directly applicable here.

Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal's legal reasoning hinged on the interpretation of the TRAI Act and Interconnect Regulations. Key points include:

• Under Section 14 of the TRAI Act, the Tribunal has broad jurisdiction to resolve disputes between service providers. However, this does not extend to involving parties without a direct contractual relationship.
• The Interconnect Regulations mandate that MSOs must provide signals to LCOs on a non-exclusive basis, negating any monopoly claims by Siti Network Ltd. Furthermore, Roshan Cable Network was not found to be in violation of any legal or contractual obligations towards Siti Network.
• The Tribunal drew a clear distinction between internal disputes among competing MSOs and those involving contractual obligations with LCOs, affirming that only the latter necessitate inclusion in litigation.
• Reliance on precedents where inclusion was either upheld or denied based on the presence of legal obligations was central to the decision, reinforcing the importance of regulatory compliance over competitive market dynamics.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in the telecom sector by clarifying the boundaries of Tribunal jurisdiction concerning competitive entities. Key impacts include:

• Reduction of Unnecessary Litigation: Competitors without direct contractual ties are less likely to be dragged into disputes, reducing court burdens and promoting fair competition.
• Strengthening Regulatory Compliance: Emphasizes adherence to Interconnect Regulations, ensuring that MSOs fulfill their obligations without leveraging litigation to maintain monopolistic advantages.
• Clarification of Party Necessity: Establishes clear criteria for determining necessary and proper parties in telecom disputes, aiding legal practitioners in structuring their cases effectively.
• Protection Against Harassment: Prevents competitors from being unjustly targeted in litigation, fostering a healthier competitive environment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The TDSAT's decision in Siti Network Ltd. v. Roshan Cable Network And Another underscores the importance of adhering to regulatory frameworks in telecom disputes. By ruling in favor of deleting a rival MSO without contractual obligations, the Tribunal not only prevented undue legal entanglements but also reinforced principles of fair competition and regulatory compliance. This judgment serves as a guiding beacon for future litigations, ensuring that only relevant parties are involved based on clear legal and contractual ties, thereby fostering a more equitable and efficient telecom ecosystem.