SC: Appeal U/S 374 CrPC/415 BNSS is Not Maintainable Against Sessions Court's Reversal of Acquittal  ||  SC Asked the Centre to Promote Awareness About the Consequences of Driving With an Expired Licence  ||  SC Explains How a Deceased Christian Wife's Property Devolves under the Indian Succession Act  ||  Supreme Court: Reach Stacker isn't a Motor Vehicle; MACT Claim Not Maintainable  ||  Supreme Court: Lift Makers, Operators and Owners Share Responsibility for User Safety  ||  Patna HC: Pressure to Sign Divorce and Child Custody does not Amount to Cruelty  ||  Bombay HC: Externment under the Police Act Requires Satisfaction About a Gang's Activities  ||  Bombay HC: False Travel Distance Claim Alone Doesn't Constitute Misappropriation  ||  J&K&L High Court: Interest on Delayed Gratuity is Not a Mandatory Pre-Deposit For an Appeal  ||  Meghalaya HC: Meritorious Candidate Cannot Be Denied Admission For a Two-Minute Delay    

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