Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory  ||  NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction    

Loop Telecom Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. - (Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal) (16 Sep 2015)

TDSAT dismisses Loop Telecom’s petition for refund of UAS licence fee

MANU/TD/0042/2015

Media and Communication

The TSDAT rejected a petition by Loop Telecom for the refund of monies paid by it towards the grant of Unified Access Licences in 2008. Given that the Supreme Court had quashed the licences, the Tribunal could not direct a refund in terms of the Contract Act, 1872. Moreover, pending criminal proceedings against the Petitioner in light of the peculiar manner in which the government had allocated licences were found to be vitally connected to the claim for refund.

Relevant : Section 65 Contract Act, 1872 Act Centre of Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India MANU/SC/0179/2011 Akhil Bhartyia Upbhokta Congress V. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0345/2011

Tags : UAS   LICENCE   LOOP   REFUND  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved