#e4mExclusive:  No dispute with Sony, says Tata Play CEO Harit Nagpal amid ongoing legal tussle

Tata Play MD and CEO Harit Nagpal has denied that the direct-to-home (DTH) operator is in a dispute with Sony Pictures Networks India, saying the broadcaster’s channels are available to subscribers and that the two companies continue to settle their accounts every month.

“I don’t have a dispute with Sony. Please tell me what dispute do I have with Sony,” Nagpal said in an interview with e4m. He said every Tata Play customer who wants Sony channels can access them on the DTH platform, adding that the company continues to pay Sony for the content it carries.

Nagpal also pointed to the companies’ ongoing interactions, saying he is in touch with the leadership of  Sony Pictures Networks India. He said the companies continue to engage with each other.

His remarks come even as the two companies remain locked in a prolonged dispute over channel distribution, commercial terms and subscriber audits, with proceedings continuing before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

While Nagpal has maintained that customers who want Sony channels can access them, the broadcaster’s channels have remained outside Tata Play’s broader base bouquets. They are available through a la carte options and selected premium packs, allowing subscribers to opt for them separately. The distinction between availability on an individual-channel basis and inclusion in regular channel packs remains central to the disagreement.

The dispute first escalated publicly in August 2024, when Tata Play removed Sony channels from the bouquets of nearly 10 million subscribers. At the time, Nagpal said the operator was restructuring its channel packs by removing less-watched channels and adjusting monthly charges accordingly. He said the company’s analysis, supported by BARC data, showed that subscribers had substantially more channels in their packs than they actively watched.

Sony, however, described the decision as arbitrary and alleged that it was retaliation for the broadcaster exercising its audit rights over Tata Play’s subscriber management system. The broadcaster said it had identified discrepancies and communicated them to the DTH operator over several years.

The disagreement subsequently returned to the centre of the distribution relationship in 2025, with Sony channels again being removed from Tata Play packs and the matter moving through the legal system.

In May 2025, TDSAT directed Tata Play to deposit ₹40 crore within two weeks while staying the execution of a ₹128.42 crore demand notice issued by Culver Max Entertainment, the Sony group company that operates the relevant television broadcasting business. The tribunal also directed Sony not to proceed with the disconnection of its broadcasting signals to Tata Play.

Sony later approached the Bombay High Court, challenging aspects of the tribunal’s orders. In June 2025, the High Court directed the broadcaster to seek relief before TDSAT. It did not grant interim relief on Sony’s challenge to restrictions on public comments, but allowed the company to share a standard message on social media stating that the dispute was sub judice and that Sony channels remained available on Tata Play through its a la carte service.

Nagpal said he was not aware of any recent progress in the proceedings, adding that, to the best of his understanding, the matter had not been heard for four to five months. He also said he had not filed a case against Sony.

On the audit-related proceedings, Nagpal said an audit had been reported but that, according to his understanding, nothing had come of it. Separately, TDSAT disposed of Sony’s audit petition in February 2026 after the broadcaster sought to withdraw it, with the tribunal recording that the subscriber audit report had been placed on record.

The broader commercial dispute, however, has continued. TDSAT heard the matter on August 7, 2026, and scheduled the next hearing for October 30. The tribunal’s proceedings and the outstanding demand notice remain important elements of the dispute, notwithstanding Nagpal’s assertion that there is no dispute between the companies.

Sony Pictures Networks India managing director and chief executive Gaurav Banerjee has also expressed hope that the matter could be resolved during the festive season. Asked whether the festive period could bring an end to the legal tussle, Banerjee said, “I hope so.”

On whether Sony channels would return to Tata Play’s broader channel packs, he said: “I’m hopeful. It’s anyway, everyone can ask for and get the channels.”

Banerjee’s comments referred to the availability of Sony channels on a la carte terms and did not confirm a settlement or provide a timeline for their return to Tata Play’s base bouquets. 

The timing is significant for broadcasters because the festive period is an important window for television viewership, marquee entertainment programming, live sports and advertising revenue. Sony Sports Network’s channels are particularly relevant to the dispute because live sports can influence viewing habits and subscriber choices.

For Tata Play, the issue is linked to how channels are packaged and priced for subscribers. For Sony, wider distribution through established DTH platforms can help maximise the reach and commercial value of its programming. The disagreement illustrates the competing interests of broadcasters seeking broad access to audiences and distributors seeking to align channel packs with consumption and subscriber preferences.

Nagpal’s position is that the two companies continue to have a functioning commercial relationship, supported by channel availability and monthly settlements. However, the continued exclusion of Sony channels from Tata Play’s base bouquets and the pending legal proceedings indicate that the underlying disagreement remains unresolved.

With the next TDSAT hearing scheduled for October 30, there is no publicly confirmed settlement between the two companies. Nagpal’s denial of a dispute sets out Tata Play’s position, while the ongoing proceedings and the broadcaster’s comments point to continuing differences over the terms and extent of channel distribution.