Asso.of Unified Tele.Serv.Prov.and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. - Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Decided on: Apr-17-2014

Court: Supreme Court of India

LAW: Article 39(b, Constitution, the Indian Telegraph Act, Rule 5, Section 16 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service, the C&AG Act, Section 16, the TRAI Act, the TRAI Act, Rule 5, Section 16, Article 149 of the Constitution of India; ii, Rule 5, Section 16, the CAG Act, Article 149 of the Constitution of India, Section 16, Article 149 of the Constitution of India, Article 149 of the Constitution of India, Section 16 of the Act of, the Licence Agreement, Rule 5 of 2002 Rules, Section 16, Section 16 of 1971, Article 149 of the Constitution, Article 266 of the Constitution, Article 149 of the Constitution, Article 149, Article 149 of the Constitution and Act, Article 266 of the Constitution of India, Section 11 and Rule 5, Article 149 of the Constitution, Section 16 of Act, Rule 5 of 2002 Rules, the Licence Agreement, Section 4, the Indian Telegraph Act, this Licence Agreement, the TRAI Act, Indian Telegraph Act 1885, this Licence Agreement, Section 224, Section 227, the Companies Act, the Companies Act, Section 5(2, Indian Telegraph Act, Section 35, Rule 5 of 2002 Rules, Section 16 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service, Section 16 of the Act of, Section 16, Article 149 of the Constitution, Article 148 of the Constitution states, Constitution, Article 149, Constitution, Article 149, Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 32 of the Constitution, Constitution, Article 149, Constitution, Constitution, Article 148, Article 148 of the Constitution, Constitution, Section 16 of 1971 Act, Article 151(1, Article 149 of the Constitution, Article 149, Section 16 of 1971 Act, Article 149, Section 16 of 1971 Act and Rule 5(i)(ii, Article 149, Article 145, Article 149, Article 149, Constitution, Article 266, Article 149 of the Constitution, Section 16 of 1971 Act and Rule 5 of TRAI Rules 2002, Chapter 3 of the Act of, Section 13 of the Act, Section 13, Section 16 of the Act of, Section 13, Section 16, Section 18 of the Act, Section 16 of Act 56 of 1971, Article 266 of the Constitution, Article 266, Article 266 i.e., Section 16 of, Section 16, Rule 3 of Rules of, Rule 5 of TRAI Rules 2002, Section 16, Article 149 of the Constitution, the Licence Agreement, Section 35 of Act, Article 149 of the Constitution, Rule 5, Article 149, Section 16 of Act, Article 149 of the Constitution.50, Section 13, Article 149 of the Constitution and Sections 3 and 5 of the TRAI Act, Rule 3 of TRAI Rules 2002, the Licence Agreement, Rule 5, Rule 5 of TRAI Rules 2002, Rule 5 of TRAI Rules 2002, Article 12 of the Constitution of India, Article 149 of the Constitution, Section 16 of the Comptroller of Auditor General’s, Rule 5 of TRAI Rules, Section 224, the Companies Act, Article 149 of the Constitution, Constitution, Section 16, Rule 5, Section 227, the Companies Act, the Companies Act

ORG: THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL, Association of Unified Tele Services Providers &, Appellants Versus Union of India, SLP, SLP, CAG, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Department of Telecommunications, Union of India, Unified Access Services, UAS, Court, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, Union of India, Natural Resources Allocation, Court, State, State, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, State, State, State, Parliament, State Legislatures, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, State, State, State, State, State, State, State, UAS, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Cricket Association of Bengal, the Central Authority, Reliance Natural Resources Limited v., Reliance Industries Limited, Court, Court, Government, State, State, the Central Government, the Central Government, The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, The National Policy of, the New Telecom Policy, NTP, NTP, the National Frequency Allocation Plan, NFAP, NFAP, the Radio Regulations, the International Telecommunication Union, ITU, Inter-Ministerial Group, the Wireless Planning Coordination Committee, the Ministry of Communications, WPC, Parliament, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Authority, the Branch Audit Office, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Service Providers, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Audit, Post &amp, Telecommunications, the Maintenance of Books of Accounts, DO Audit, the Branch Audit Officers, Authority, Audit and Telecom Service Providers, Comptroller &amp, Unified Access Service, DDG, Department of Telecommunications, AS-IV, UASL, Clause 22.6, S.K. Mittal &amp, Audit of Telecom Service Providers, POST &, DAKC, under:“Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, M/s Tata Group of Companies Indicom, the Branch Audit Offices, Audit, Post &amp, Branch Audit Offices, Branch Audit Offices, the Delhi Office of the DG Audit, Authority, the Service Providers, CAG, the Service Providers, CAG, the Delhi High Court, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Service Providers, Court, UAS, CAG, the Central Government, the High Court, State, the Judgment of this Court, M.K. Ranganathan v. Government of Madras, Primary Teachers’ Association, the Constituent Assembly Debates, State, the Consolidated Fund of India, CAG, UAS, CAG, the High Court, Government, the Consolidated Fund of India, Additional Solicitor General of, the High Court, the High Court, CAG, Parliament, CAG, Parliament, Court, the Consolidated Fund of India, the Government of India, Sections 13, CAG, the Consolidated Fund, CAG, the High Court, the UAS Licence Agreement, the Central Government, State, UAS, State, Tariff, Licence Fee, Licence Fee, Radio Spectrum, the Licence Fee, Wireless Planning &amp, Licensed Operators, Licenses, Adjusted Gross Revenue, the “Adjusted Gross Revenue, AGR, Sales Tax, Sales Tax and Service Tax, Auditors, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, the Union of India, AGR, AGR, Union, the Central Government, the Central Government, Authority, under:“5, Authority, UAS Licence, CAG, UAS Licence, the Union of India, the Union of India, Revenue Share, the Consolidated Fund of India, CAG, CAG, CAG, Parliament, Parliament, CAG, the Supreme Court of India, CAG, Parliament, CAG, Parliament, the Auditor General of, the Dominion of India, CAG, Parliament, CAG, the High Court, the Supreme Court, CAG, Parliament, CAG, Court, S.Subramaniam Balaji v. State of, SCC659and this Court, CAG, State, Government, CAG, CAG, CAG, CAG, Union of India, Court, CAG, CAG, Union of India, Court, CAG, CAG, Court, CAG, each House of Parliament, CAG, Parliament, CAG, Parliament, Parliament, UAS Licence, UAS Licence, State, Parliament, the Council of Ministers to the Legislature, the Judgment of this Court, S.R. Chaudhuri, CAG, Parliament, CAG, the Constituent Assembly Debates, State, State, Court, People’s Union For Civil Liberties, PUCL, another v. Union of India, Parliament, the Union of India, the Consolidated Fund of India, the Government of India, CFI, CAG, the Union of India, the Union of India, Clauses 22.5, CAG, the Service Providers, the Service Provider, the Union of India, the Consolidated Fund of India, Parliament, State, UAS, Executive, CAG, the Consolidated Fund of India, State, a Legislative Assembly, State, Contingency Funds and Public Accounts, State, CAG, Contingency Funds and Public, Union or State, Union, the Consolidated Fund of India, State, a Legislative Assembly, CAG, Consolidated Fund of India, State, Parliament, Union, State, Consolidated Fund, CAG, State, Auditor-General, CAG, the Government of India, UAS, Radio, Government, the Consolidated Fund of India, Union, the Consolidated Fund, CAG, the Service Providers, the Union of India, the Books of Accounts, CAG, CAG, CAG, CAG, CAG, CAG, UAS Service, Union, CAG, Union, CAG, Union, CAG, CAG, the Union of India, the Service Providers, the Union of India, the Department of Telecommunications, the Director General of Audit, Post and, Unified Access Service, UAS, the Comptroller of Auditor General of, The Telecom Service Providers, the Telecom Disputes Settlement, Appellate Tribunal, UAS, TRAI Service Providers, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Service Providers, the Central Government, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Clauses 22.3, the Conditions of License, UAS, Tribunal, DOT, DOT, Vodafone, DOT, Court, DOT, Tribunal, Department, DOT, the Comptroller of Auditor General of, Vodafone, Airtel, Tribunal, the Conditions of License, DOT, DOT, CAG, DOT, Tribunal, Department, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Court, CIT, Income Tax, Tribunal, Anisminic Ltd., V. Foreign Compensation Commission, the Conditions of License, Tribunal, Additional Solicitor General, Tribunal, Clauses 22.3, Department, CAG, Department, CAG, CAG, Conditions of Service, the Union of India, Tribunal, CAG, Tribunal, UAS License, Tribunal, CAG, Department, Audit, Post &amp, Telecommunications, UAS, the Audit of Telecom, CAG, India Ministry of Communication Department of Telecommunication, No.842, Bharti Hexacom Ltd., Unitech World, 4th Floor, Unified Access Service, UAS, DDG, Department of Telecommunications, AS-IV, UAS License, Tribunal, the Director General of Audit, Post &amp, UAS, Audit, Post &amp, SAP ERP System, Noida Office, CAG, the Union of India, UAS, the Consolidated Fund of India.67, Tribunal, Clauses 22.3, Tribunal, CAG, Tribunal, CAG, Tribunal, DOT, CAG, CAG, CAG, Tribunal, CAG, Clauses 22.5, Auditors, Clauses 22.5, CAG, the DoT., Tribunal, DoT/CAG, the Service Providers, Tribunal

DATE: 2014, 2014, 2012, 2012, September 27, 2012, 2012, Articles 38, 39, 48, 1995, 2010, 1885, 1933, 1994, 1999, 1999, 1999, the end of 1999, the next three months, the end of the year 2000, the year 1997, 2002, the period of, three years, 2006-2007, 2002, the last week of January, 2010, Licensor, three years, 2006-07, 20, 110001, 15 days, 15.04.2010, 2007-08, three years, 2006-07, the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and, 1st April, 2010, 12th April 2010, 1971, 10.05.2010, 20th May, 2010, 110 002, 21st May, 2010, 28th January, 2010, 2002, 28th January, 2010, 15 days, 2010, 2002, 10.5.2010, 2002, 1971, 1971, 1955, 2004, 1971, 1971, 1971, 2001, 1992, 16, 18, 1971, 1885, few decades, Licensor, 1997, 16, 1997, 1933, 1997, Licensor, annual, 20.6, quarterly, each year, 1956, the year, 1956, quarterly, annual, annual, quarterly, annual, 20.7, later than three months, each quarter, the quarter, 22.3, 22.3, THREE years, 1956, 1956, annual, 1885, 1997, 1885, 1885, annually, 2002, 1997, 1971, 56 of 1971, Rule 3 of 2002 Rules, 1971, 2013, 1971, 2013, 2013, 1940, 2003, 1971, 1971, 45, 1971, 2002, 1971, 1997, 2002, 1971, 1971, 16, 1971, 1997, 16.3.2010, 10.5.2010, three years, 2006-2007, 2010, 16th March, 2010, 10th May, 2010, 2002, 54, 2002, the financial years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 58, 2007, 2 SCC181as, 2008, 1969, 16.3.2010, 16.3.2010, 10.5.2010, 1971, 2002, 1971, 16.3.2010, 10.5.2010, 16.3.2010, 20, 16th March, 2010, Licensor, three years, 2006-07, 20, 15 days, Sd/- 16.3.2010, 16.3.2010, three years, 22.3, 22.3, THREE years, 64, 22.3(a, 10.5.2010, 10.5.2010, 16.3.2010, 110002, 21st May 2010, 22.3, Licensor, 1971, 1971, 1956, 1956, April 17, 2014

PERSON: K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.CIVIL APPEAL, DoT, DoT, norms.78, NFAP, DoT, DoT, Sanchar Bhavan, Sd/-, Shashi Mohan, DoT, Licensee, DoT, DoT, DoT, DoT, DoT, DoT, DoT, DoT, DoT, DoT, Dear Shri Singh, R.P. Singh, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Anand, Mathura Road, far.3, DoT, Sd/-, Anuradha Mitra, DoT, DoT, N. Salve, nocitar, Shri Salve, DoT, Gopal Jain, Shri Paras Kuhad, Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, Rule, DoT, DoT, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, General:16, LICENSEE, Licence, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, Licensee, Licensee, Annual Licence, LICENSEE, Coordination Wing, WPC Wing, Gross, Licence, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, Licence, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, Licence, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, Licensee, Maintenance of Books of Accounts, DoT, DoT, DoT, Tamil Nadu, Arvind Gupta v., Kumar Agrawal, Kihoto Hollohan, DoT, DoT, DoT, Nos, DoT, 10.5.2010, Shri Paras Kuhad, Shri Kuhad, Shri Kuhad, Shri Kuhad, Shri Gopal Jain, DoT, DoT, Sanchar Bhawan, Emphasis Supplied].2, Sanchar Bhavan, DoT, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, Licence, Emphasis Supplied, DoT, Telecommunications Sham Nath Marg, R. P. Singh, DoT, Sd/- R. P. Singh, DoT, Licencee, DoT, Articles 148, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, LICENSEE, Licensee, Licensee, DoT, J.(K.S. Radhakrishnan

CARDINAL: 2014].1, 3, 10, 48, 51, two, 4, 2, two, 7, 1, 3, 1971.2, 5, 9, 16.03.2010 to one, 22.3, 10, One, 11, 10, 16.03.2010.2, 12, 21.05.2010, 2A, 110 065, 13, No.3, 14, 2, 3, 1, 22, 22, 7, 2, 19, 9.1, 1, 22, 1, 16.3, 23, 2, 17, 1, 24, 3, One, 18.2, 6, 1.4.2004, 18.3, 3.1, 25, 19, 1, 19.2, II, 26, 20, 20.4, 20.7, 20.11, 20.6, 20.7, 20.4, 7, seven, 20.11, 22.5, 22.6, 27, 22, 22.1, 22.2, quarter, 19, 22.5, 22.6, 22.5, 22.7, 28, 32, 32.1, 32.2, 29, one, 19.1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 31, 1, 3, 32, 22.5, 34, 9, 1, 149, 150, 151, 4 SCC399, 22.6, perspective.42, 43, 18, 1, 2, 18.1, 18.3.1, 22.1, 22.2, 16.1, 3, 5, 5, 18, 22, 22.5, two, 139, 141, 5(b, 19.5.2010, 22.6, about 200 million, 56, 22.4, one, three, 22.5, 57, 22.5, 22.6, 22.5, 22.5, 59, 14, 1, two, 22.5, 22.6, 22.5, 110 001, 122 001, 22.3, 110 001, 63, 22.3(b, 10-5, 66, 22.6, 22.5, 20.4, 22.5, 22.6, three, 22.5, 22.5, 22.5, 22.6, 149, 22.6, 22.6, 22.5, 69, 22.6, 22.5, 22.5, 22.6, 22.5, 22.5, 22.6

WORK_OF_ART: the Presidential Reference, “Furnishing of Books of Accounts to the Branch Audit Offices of the Director General of Audit, Post and Telecommunications, Civil Writ Petition 3673 of, Collector of Central Excise, Baroda (1990, Special Auditors, Revenue Sharing Basis, the Constitution of India, Contingency Funds and Public Accounts, Revenue Sharing, Special Auditors

GPE: Democratic Republic of Congo, India, India, India, NTP, NFAP, India, India, India, India, New Delhi, Delhi, New Delhi, Singh, Navi Mumbai, New Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, New Delhi.2, India, States, India, S.R., Chaudhuri, States, India, India, India, India, States, India, Arun, States, Telecom, CAG).53, India, New Delhi, Gurgaon, New Delhi, Delhi, Licensor, Licensor, New Delhi

ORDINAL: first, second, first, first, first, First

TIME: 28.01.2010, 16.3.2010 and 10.5.2010, 16.3.2010 and 10.5.2010

FAC: Ashoka Road, Telecommunication, Ashoka Road, Ashoka Road

PRODUCT: FY200607, Respondent No.2, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933, grounds:“(i, No.842-1086/2010

NORP: UAs, C&AG-Reg, Indian, C&AG-Reg

EVENT: the DG Audit

LOC: Union, Rajesh Kumar, Sahara India

PERCENT: 6%

MONEY: 1971 Act