SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Litigant Cannot be Worse Off for Filing an Appeal under ‘No Reformatio in Peius’  ||  Orissa HC: Article 22(1) Arrest Rights Pre-Exist, Written Grounds Ruling Not Prospective  ||  Kerala HC: Kissing a Child’s Penis Constitutes Penetrative Sexual Assault under POCSO  ||  Madras HC: Married Daughter Cannot be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely for Her Marriage  ||  Bombay High Court: Child Welfare Prevails as ‘Joint Parenting’ is Not Recognised in Indian Law  ||  Kerala HC: Minor’s Consent or Relationship with Accused Holds No Relevance under POCSO Act  ||  Bombay HC: Failure to Prove Exact Quantum of Loss Does Not Bar Compensation  ||  CCPA Fines Dial4Trade Rs. 10 Lakh for Online Ammonium Nitrate Listing Featuring Blast Images  ||  Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved