Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

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