Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) have filed these appeals challenging the Domestic Leased Circuits Regulations 2007 (10 of 2007) dated 14.9.2007 issued by the Respondent -Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) (hereinafter referred to as Authority). The pleadings in both the cases being similar, it was decided to take up and dispose of these two appeals together. The arguments on behalf of BSNL were marshalled by Mr. Maninder Singh. Mr. Vasisht, counsel for MTNL adopted his arguments. As such, for convenience, we will refer to the arguments of Mr. Maninder Singh as those of the counsel for Appellants. 2. The Appellants’ claim is that the impugned Regulations have been issued by the Respondent without jurisdiction and that they have been issued in complete disregard of the terms and conditions of the licences granted to service providers when, in fact, as per the TRAI Act, it is incumbent upon the Authority to ensure that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
By this petition the petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as an IT company has sought relief against the demand raised by the respondent for the lease charges of a 2 MBPS data circuit from its premises at Kollam to Alleppey from 14.8.2003 to 24.12.2004. The final bill was issued on 4.11.2004 by which the petitioner was liable to pay only up to 24.12.2004 i.e. the date up to which the leased circuit has been operative. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the bill raised on 24.06.2003 before the provision of leased line by respondent for an amount of Rs. 595872/- has been paid to the extent of Rs. 595631/- which has been arrived at by calculating the service tax at 8% (which is the prevailing rate) by it and, therefore, the alleged final bills, totaling to Rs. 985060/-, creating a net liability of Rs. 389429/- after 15 months from the date of commissioning of the lease circuit is illegal, non-sustainable in law and arbitrary. The initiation of coercive s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
In this Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the decision dated 19.10.2007 of the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as DOT) on the ground that it is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice as well as violative of the mutually agreed contract between the Petitioners and the Government. 2. The decision of the DOT was communicated vide a Press Release dated 19.10.2007 and the major decisions were, inter alia, as follows: That the Recommendations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) that there should be no cap on the number of access providers in any service area were accepted; That Government have accepted TRAI’s recommendation of enhanced subscriber linked criteria for frequency allocation; That it has been decided that the existing private UAS licensees may be permitted to expand their existing networks by using alternate wireless technology i.e. a UAS licensee who is presently using GSM tec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
The three Appeals - 6 of 2006, 5 of 2007 and 5 of 2008 were filed by the Appellant – Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as BSNL) - challenging the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, reducing Access Deficit Charge (hereinafter referred to as ADC). 2. In Appeal No. 6 of 2006, the Appellant has impugned the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charge (Sixth Amendment) Regulation (1 of 2006) dated 23.2.2006 (hereinafter referred to as IUC Regulation 2006). In Appeal No. 5 of 2007, the Appellant has impugned the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charge (Eighth Amendment) Regulation (2 of 2007) dated 21.3.2007 (hereinafter referred to as IUC Regulation 2007). In Appeal No. 5 of 2008, the Appellant has impugned the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charge (Ninth Amendment) Regulation (2 of 2008) dated 27.3.2008 (hereinafter referred to as IUC Regulation 2008). 3. The contention of the Appellant is that the concept and the nor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
S.B. Sinha Whether the petitioners, being DTH operators, are entitled to the benefit of the judgments passed by this Tribunal dated 7.7.2006, 30.8.2006 and 26.8.2008 as also the recommendations of the TRAI dated 1.10.2004, is the question involved in these petitions. The said question arises in the following factual matrix. The petitioners are licensees under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Indisputably, in terms of the licenses granted to them, they were required to pay the license fee only on the basis of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) which has been defined in the license as under: “ADJUSTED GROSS REVENUE” for the purpose of levying LICENCE fee as a percentage of revenue shall mean the Gross Revenue as reduced by: Call Charges (access charges) actually paid to other telecom service provides for carriage of calls; Service tax for provision of service and sales tax actually paid to the Government if gross revenue had included the component of service tax and sales ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
The petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking. It carries on a business of providing bandwidth connectivity to various business houses through its fibre network spread all over the country. The respondent is a service provider. For the purpose of supplying bandwidth connectivity for their operations in Northern India, the parties herein entered into an agreement for the said purpose, pursuant whereto and in furtherance whehreof, purchase orders were issued. The first purchase order was issued on 29.8.02. It is also not in dispute that the parties hereto had entered into an Umbrella Memorandum of Understanding on or about 15.9.03. The parties again entered into a purchase agreement on or about 30.4.2004. We are concerned with clauses 3, 6 and 11 thereof having regard to the fact that interpretation of the aforementioned provisions are in question before us. We would notice the same at an appropriate stage. It is furthermore not in dispute that the petitioner herein had been raising i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
S.B. Sinha Introduction Tariff Regulation dated 21.07.2010 made by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) commonly known as Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Fourth) (Addressable System Order), 2010 (the impugned tariff order) is in question in this batch of appeals. Backdrop The Appellants before us are broadcasters. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘TRAI’) was originally the sole Respondent. Some of the DTH operators with DTH Operators Association of India as also other MSOs have been impleaded as parties in these proceedings and/or permitted to intervene. On a letter received by this Tribunal from Tamilnadu Progressive Consumer Centre praying for its being impleaded as a party to protect the consumers’ interest, it was also impleaded as a party. However, it did not file any pleadings nor did it advance any independent argument. The impugned tariff order came into force w.e.f. 1.9.2010. De-fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
S.B. SINHA Interpretation of various clauses of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations, 2004 (The Regulations) as amended from time to time arise for consideration in these petitions. 2. We may, at the outset, notice the factual matrix of these matters. The petitioner is a Multi Service Operator within the meaning of the provisions of the Regulations, which has a Pan India presence. It intended to launch its services in the towns of Kanpur, Lucknow, Gorakhpur and Jaunpur in the State of U.P. For the aforementioned purpose, it made requests to the respondent herein for supply of signals on or about 24.9.2008, stating : “Based on our discussion in last few meetings, you are kindly requested to finalize the terms and conditions on which you will provide us IRDs for Kanpur in the State of U.P.” 3. A reminder thereto was sent on 10.11.2008, along with which the following documents were annexed : “(i) Memorandum and Articles of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
G.D. GAIHA The petitioner is a DTH operator and by way of the present petition it has challenged the legalities of the disconnection notice dated 18.5.2010 and the public notices issued on 21.5.2010. Since there is no tariff order regulation in the DTH sector unlike in cable sector, the pricing norm in DTH sector is 50 % of the rate of the TV channel in the non-CAS cable areas. The respondent is Broadcasting sports content and distributing sports channels in India, namely, ESPN, STAR sports, and STAR cricket. 2. The learned counsel, Mr. Jain on behalf of the petitioner would urge before us:- (a) The increase of 7 % is applicable only in Non-CAS Area unaddressable platform and is not applicable at all for DTH platform. This 7 % increase on the prices fixed under the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services(Second) Tariff (Eighth Amendment) Order, 2008 dated 4th October, 2007, which has been quashed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 15.1.2009. In this context, a brie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
S.B. Sinha, Mr. P.K. Rastogi, Member). Althoughweagree with the draft judgment prepared by Shri. G.D. Gaiha, Learned Member that the petition should be dismissed albeit without any order as to costs, we may assign our own reasons therefor. Factual Background Petition No. 67 (C) of 2008, 68(C) of 2008, 69(C) of 2008 and 87 (C) of 2008 form one batch of petitions wherein petitioner had interalia prayed for an order of injunction against respondents directing them to restore its signals. On an interim prayer made by petitioner, this Tribunal by an order dated 24.04.01 directed respondent No.1 in each of these petitions to restore supply of signals. The respondents herein contend that pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, supply of signals were restored. The said order of injunction was prayed for inter alia on the premise that respondent No.1 in these matters for all intent and purport had taken over the network of petitioner. This Tribunal recorded a prima facie finding...
Tag this Judgment!