Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Aftab Alam, Chairperson. Reliance Communications Limited (Reliance) earlier filed petitions claiming refund of large sums of money from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited {BSNL) Petition no.142 of 2007 and Mahanagar Sanchar Nigam Limited (MTNL) Petition no.143 of 2007. Those two petitions were allowed in part by a common judgment passed by the Tribunal on 17 October 2012 and the matter presently lies in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has declined to pass any interim order of stay in the appeals filed by MTNL and BSNL and hence, Reliance has filed these two Execution Petitions asserting that in terms of the Tribunals judgment on its claim for refunds, it is entitled to be paid Rs.16.43 crores (inclusive of interest calculated up to 31 Oct. 2012) from BSNL and Rs.330.83 crores(inclusive of interest calculated up to 31 Oct. 2012) from MTNL. Besides the aforesaid sums, Reliance also claims from each BSNL and MTNL, proportionate costs of the litigation and the Counsels fee fix...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
1. The present petition has been filed seeking recovery of Rs.14,56,884/- on account of subscription charges for receiving the signals from the petitioner and Rs. 56,000/- towards installation charges, along with interest at the rate of 24 percent per annum, from the respondent. 2. The petitioner is a Multi System Operator operating in West Bengal. The respondent is a proprietorship firm having its principal office at Midnapore, Belda and is a cable operator engaged in the business of providing/servicing and connecting signals to subscribers on its cable network. 3. Summary of the petitioners case is as under :- (i) M/s. Cablecomm Services Pvt. Ltd., who was a predecessor in interest of the petitioner, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.7.2007 with the respondent for supply of its signals. The parties continued the relationship as per the terms and conditions of this MoU till December 2009. Thereafter, the relationship between the parties was governed by an oral agreem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Aftab Alam, Chairperson. 1. Does the Unified Access Services Licence have a definite contracted quantum of spectrum which the licensor, the Union of India is obliged to provide to the licensee? In case the answer to the question is in the affirmative, what is the amount/extent of spectrum assured under the UAS licence to a mobile phone service operator using the GSM technology? Is the licensor, the Union of India committed to provide 6.2 MHz spectrum in aggregate (indeed, on the licensee meeting the prescribed criteria) or in terms of the licence the entitlement of the licensee does not exceed 4.4 MHz band and the Union of India is not obliged to give the additional spectrum of 1.8 MHz? Further, in case the assured quantum under the UAS licence is 6.2 MHz spectrum, whether the allocation of the 1.8 MHz additional spectrum beyond the initial 4.4 MHz spectrum is covered by the entry fee paid at the time of grant of the licence or the additional allocation of spectrum, (on meeting the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Aftab Alam, Chairperson. The petitioners in the three connected cases are mobile telephone service providers under the Licenses Unified Access Services Licence in case of Vodafone and Bharti and Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Licence in case of Loop. granted by the Central Government to them under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Their licenses, on completion of the 20 years period stipulated therein, are due to expire at the end of November 2014. On commencement of the nineteenth year of the licence period, they had approached the Central Government for taking steps for renewal of their licenses for another period of 10 years as provided in the terms of the licence. Failing to get any favourable response, the petitioners went to the Delhi High Court in writ petitions i. WP(C) no.1886 of 2013 by Vodafone ii. WP (C) no.1887 of 2013 by Bharti iii. WP (C) no. 1888 of 2013 by Loop seeking appropriate directions. The High Court, having noted the rival contentions disposed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
1. The petitioner M/s. Ravi Teja Communication Networks is a registered cable operator in the area Miryalguda situated at H. No.18-1028/A, Shivaji Nagar, Miryalguda-508207, Nalgonda Dist. (A.P.). The respondent M/s. Eenadu Television Private Ltd. is a broadcaster and a distributor of ETV Group of channels namely ETV and ETV 2. Desirous of obtaining the signals of the respondent, the petitioner approached the respondent and aggrieved by its failure to get the signals, filed the present petition. 2. Summary of the petition: (i) Vide letter dated 20.3.2012 the petitioner requested the respondent to supply signals of ETV and ETV 2 channels. Subsequently vide letter dated 06.7.2012, various documents were submitted by the petitioner to the respondent. A copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure P-3 (page 15 and 16 of the Paper Book) and the relevant portion of the same is as under :- œDear Sir, We hereby submitting the following documents containing entire details of our network with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Kuldip Singh, Member. 1. It is a recovery petition for a sum of Rs.3,63,068/-. The petitioner “ M/s. Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd. is a Multi Systems Operator engaged in the business of reception and distribution of satellite television, broadcast signals etc. to various distributors, franchises, local cable operators. The respondent “ M/s. Sai Pooja Cable is a local cable operator, which is a proprietorship concern owned by Mr. Manohar Sawant having its office at P.R. Tiwari Chawl, R. No. 16, Raghunath Nagar, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604, Maharashtra. 2. The respondent has not appeared in spite of notice and several opportunities granted to it. In view of that the matter has been heard ex-parte. 3. The summary of the petitioners case is as under:- (i) The respondent on the mutually accepted terms and conditions viz. mutually negotiated prices of individual channels/bouquets of channels and subscriber base, entered into understanding/oral agreement with petitioner for supply...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
The Petitioner has filed the present petition against the order of the Respondent dated 28.12.2012 wherein the Respondent has levied One Time Spectrum Charges (OTSC) for spectrum held by the incumbent telecom service provider. Further, the Respondent has demanded an amount of Rs.3,599.40 crores from the Petitioner as OTSC by its order dated 08.01.2013. 2. It is seen that by its order dated 28.12.2012 the Respondent has levied OTSC by invoking the power conferred by Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for GSM spectrum held in 900 MHz and 1800 MHz by Telecom service providers in terms of the following :- (i) For spectrum holding above 6.2 MHz (GSM) rates applicable for the period 01.07.2008 to 31.12.2012 shall be as per Schedule of rates given in Annexure. (ii) For spectrum holding above 4.4 MHz (GSM), one time charge shall be effective from 01.01.2013 as per Schedule of rates given in Annexure Licensees may surrender spectrum beyond 4.4 MHz if they do not wish to pay the charge....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
These petitions have been filed on the basis that the Petitioner has completed its first and 2nd phase roll out obligation and is, therefore, entitled to release all Performance Bank Guarantees in respect of UP (E) and Madhya Pradesh circles. The Petitioner further submitted that it has completed its roll out obligation in respect of Mumbai circle and therefore entitled for refund of the PBG. The Petitioner has filed this Miscellaneous Application on receipt of a communication dated 3.1.2013 from the Respondent wherein the Petitioner was directed to furnish the extension of PBG for a minimum period of one year on or before 7.1.2013 failing which action as per licence agreement including invocation of bank guarantees will be initiated without any further notice. 2. Aggrieved by this communication of the Respondent, the Petitioner has filed these applications with a prayer to pass an appropriate order restraining the Respondent from taking any coercive steps vide communication dated 3.1....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
The Petitioners have filed miscellaneous applications to pass an order that there is no obligation on the part of the Petitioner to renew the Performance Bank Guarantees and financial bank guarantees for any of the service areas. It has also prayed for restraining the DoT from taking any coercive steps qua renewal of the Performance Bank Guarantees and Financial Bank Guarantees, including but not limiting to, invocation and/or encashment of the same. The Petitioner had filed main petition in respect of 21 service areas for release of bank guarantees both performance and financial bank guarantees, repayment of liquidated damages and seeking the compensation for cost and expenses incurred by the Petitioner etc. against the Respondent. On 12.9.2012 this Tribunal had issued order for reduction of performance bank guarantees for West Bengal to the extent of 50% and other petitions are pending for final hearing. 2. According to the Petitioner the licenses of the Petitioners were cancelled an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
The Petitioner has filed these petitions to declare as null and void, the agreement dated 10.11.2012 for payment of 10 paise per sms as SMS Termination Service entered into between the parties. According to the Petitioner, it was coerced into signing the impugned Agreement by the Respondents who threatened to disconnect the SMS termination services by virtue of their dominant position. 2. By way of interim prayer, the Petitioner has also requested that operation of the said agreement may be stayed during the pendency of the present case and direct the Respondent not to take any coercive steps for withdrawal of SMS Termination Services for the Petitioners network in all areas. 3. Ms. Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has brought to my notice an order issued by this Tribunal on 9.11.2012 in Petition No. 822 of 2012. By way of an interim order, this Tribunal had ordered the Respondent (Respondent No. 2 in this petition ) not to withdraw the Interconnect SMS ser...
Tag this Judgment!