Bpl Mobile Cellular Limited and Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of

Decided On : May-13-2003

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

LAW: Section 14A(2, the India Telegraph Act, Section 29 and Section 34, Section 29, Section 34, Section 29, Section 34, Section 29, Section 34, Section 13, Section 29, Section 13, Section 11(1)(b, Section 29, Section 34, Section 11(2, Section 20A, Indian Telegraph Act, Section 29, the Indian Telegraph Act, Section 11(2, the Indian Telegraph Act, Section 29, Section 34 of the Act, Section 13, Section 11(1)(b, Section 29, Section 34 of the Act, Section 29, Section 13 of the Act, Section 11, Section 12, Section 11, Section 13 of the Act, Section 11(2, Section 11(1)(b, Section 12(4, Section 29, Section 34, Section 13 Read with Section 11(1)(b, TRAI (Amendment) Act, Section 13, Section 11(1)(b, TRAI (Amendment) Act, the Authority may:-, Section 29, the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, Section 11(2, Section 12(4

CARDINAL: 1, 656, 2002.2, one, 30^th, 11^th, three, one, two, 1, 2, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2., 3, three, one, two, one, two, 314

ORG: Appeal, BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd., the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Bombay High Court, The Appellant Company, BPL Mobile Cellular Limited, Cellular, Maharashtra and Goa, the Appellant Company, BPL Mobile Cellular Limited, Company, The Petitioner, Shri Sudhanshu, BPL Mobile Cellular Limited, The High Court, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the High Court, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Petitioner, Shri Sudhanshu, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Telecommunication Tariff Order, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecommunication Tariff Order, BPL Mobile Cellular Limited, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, Tribunal, Order, Appeal, the Tribunal the Appellant Company, The Appellant Company, Appellant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Appellant, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Consumer Forum, The Customer Forums, Appellant, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Appellant, the Reporting Requirements under, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Reporting Requirement, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act.6, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Telecommunication Tariff Order, TTO, Reporting Requirements, TTO, High Court, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, Appellant, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecommunication Tariff Order, Counsel of the Appellant, the Reporting Requirement, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, Counsel of the Respondent, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, Counsel of the Respondent, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, Counsel of the Appellant, Tariff Order, Telecommunication Tariff Order, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Regulatory Authority of India Act, Telecom Regulatory Authority, Authority, the Power of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Authority, Authority, the Telecommunication Tariff Order, Telecommunication Tariff Order, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, Authority, Authority, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, that:-, Orders/Regulations/Directions/Determinations, Authority, Authority, Authority, Authority, Authority, Authority, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, License, License, Authority, MTNL, The Learned Counsel of the Respondent, Appeal, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.10, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Telecommunication Tariff Order, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecommunication Tariff Order, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Forums, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, a Criminal Court

DATE: 1997, 23^rd December, 2002, 1885, 1 year, 25^th July, 2001, the scheme 5 months later, November 2001, May 2002.Subsequently, 22^nd Sept. 2002, October, 2002, December 2002, 23^rd December, 2002, 23^rd December,, 2002, 1999, 1999, 1997, 4^th February, 2003, 18^th February 2003, July 2001, 12 months, 1999, 1997, 1999, 1999, 1997, 1999, 1999, 1885, 1885, 1997, 1885, 1999, 1999, 1999, October, 2002, 1997, every day, 1999, 1999, October 2002, 1997, 2000, 1997, 2000, Licensor, 3rd March, 2003, 10^th November, 2002, 1997, 1999, 1997, 1999, 30 days, 23rd December, 2002

GPE: Mumbai, Kerala, Bombay, Lalgaon, Ahmednagar

PERSON: Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Chennai, Shri Sudhanshu, Order, Order, Bangalore, Bangalore

WORK_OF_ART: The Subscribers Agreement, Appellant, the Reporting Requirement under

PRODUCT: Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant

FAC: Consumer Forums, Telecommunication

NORP: Maharashtra

LOC: Respondent, Respondent, Respondent

ORDINAL: second, first