Supreme Court: Imminent Death Not Required For a Statement to Qualify as Dying Declaration  ||  SC: HC Cannot Grant Pre-Arrest Bail Without Quashing FIR; Accused Must Approach Sessions Court First  ||  SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract  ||  SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract  ||  SC: GST Exemption on Residential Lease Applies When Building is Sub-Leased for Hostel/PG Use  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Universities Cannot Retain Students’ Original Documents for Pending Fees  ||  NCLT: Damages from Contractual Disputes Cannot Form Basis for Initiating Insolvency Proceedings  ||  Del HC: Pre-SCN Consultation is Unnecessary in Large-Scale GST Fraud Cases with Complex Transactions  ||  Calcutta HC: Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Violates Natural Justice and Sets Aside the Award  ||  Raj HC Upholds Padmesh Mishra’s AAG Appointment, Noting Advocacy Skill isn’t Tied to Experience    

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