2010 (8) Supreme 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. H. Kapadia, CJI., K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
B.S.N.L. — Appellant(s)
versus
Reliance Communication Ltd. — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2010
Decided on : 29-11-2010
(b) Interconnection agreement – ADC payment – It is in the nature of tax as no service is rendered in return. (Para 16)
(c) Interconnect Agreement – Clause 6.4.6 – It is not penal but a pre-estimate of reasonable compensation for the loss foreseen at the time of entering into the agreement. (Para 19)
(d) Words and Phrases – Liquidated Damages – Liquidated damages serve the useful purpose of avoiding litigation and promoting commercial certainty – Court should not be astute to categorize as penalties the clauses described as liquidated damages. (Para 19)
(1964) 1 SCR 515; (2009) 2 SCC 337; (1969) 2 SCC 554 ; (1974) 2 SCC 231 – Distinguished impliedly
Facts of the case:
Whether clause 6.4.6 of the Interconnect Agreement between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and M/s. Reliance Infocomm Limited is penal or a pre-estimate of Damages is the question arising in this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Clause 6.4.6 of the Interconnect Agreement is not penal but a pre-estimate of reasonable compensation for the loss foreseen at the time of entering into the agreement.
Result:
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment set aside and matter remitted to TDSAT.
Key Points: - Clause 6.4.6 is not penal but a pre-estimate of reasonable compensation for loss foreseen at the time of entering the agreement (!) (!) . - The agreement operates within a regulatory regime where level playing field and accurate billing are essential to prevent undue competitive advantage (!) (!) . - UASL must ensure proper screening, prevent tampering or masking of CLI, and maintain detailed billing and CDRs at each POI (!) (!) (!) . - Disputes over charges for wrongly routed or masked calls are to be decided based on pre-estimated damages, avoiding protracted litigation (!) (!) . - The contractual framework, including addenda, defines technical, commercial, and obligations for interconnection between BSNL and UASL (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
S.H. Kapadia, CJI
1. Whether clause 6.4.6 of the Interconnect Agreement between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and M/s. Reliance Infocomm Limited is penal or a pre-estimate of damages is the question which arises for determination in this civil appeal?
Facts
2. On 18th March, 1997, Reliance had entered into BSO Interconnect Agreement with Department of Telecommunications (DoT) for interconnection of their networks within their respective circles. In October, 2000, with its establishment, the BSNL took over from DoT the aforementioned BSO Agreement. In November, 2003, the BSO regime was replaced by Unified Access Services regime which granted the licence to service providers for both basic and mobile telephony services as part of a single unified licence. Reliance was allowed to operate as a Unified Access Service provider from November 14, 2003 though it was formally granted the Unified Access Service Licence on 21st September, 2004 with effect from 14th November, 2003. By an addenda dated 28th February, 2006, the agreement was formally amended with retrospective effect from 14th November, 2003. The Agreement deals with local calls, national long distance calls (NLDC) and international long distance calls (ILD). Calls of each trunk group are connected through dedicated ports and are chargeable at rates different from other trunk groups. Hence, depending on the number of calls handled by a particular port, charges are levied by BSNL on Reliance, at the rate of the existing call charges payable for that particular trunk group.
3. On 24th June, 2003, the DoT issued a circular specifying that Calling Line Identification (CLI) cannot be tampered with under any circumstances and also gave directions to service providers on how to prevent such tampering. By its circular dated 28th January, 2004, the above circular of DoT coupled with IUC Regulations dated 29 th October, 2003 issued by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was made effective.
4. In September, 2004, BSNL received several complaints from its subscribers in Gujarat that they were receiving ILD calls with local CLI Numbers. On the basis of these reports, BSNL made its own enquiries by calling the local CLI number, i.e., 0281-3041000. This was on 5th October, 2004, 6th October, 2004 and 7th October, 2004. Each time the number was called the response from the other end was that the number did not exist. Therefore, on 8th October, 2004, BSNL reported the matter to Reliance at which time Reliance had sent its report to DoT regarding the same. In the said report to DoT, Reliance stated that the wrong routing of ILD calls was being done by one of its subscribers, viz., M/s. Raj Enterprises (who was given 60 calls circuits). The series of numbers allotted to Raj Enterprises was from 2813041000 - 2813041199, i.e., 200 numbers.
5. On 13th October, 2004, BSNL gave notice to Reliance saying that Reliance is having POIs at various Exchanges in Vadodra; that on monitoring incoming traffic to BSNL as indicated in CDRs at the above POIs, it was found that there were numerous calls with CLI as 281 3041000; that, such calls have been received from 4th September, 2004 and, therefore, BSNL will charge at Rs. 5.65 per minute for all incoming calls at POI of Reliance from July, 2004. It may be noted that Rs. 5.65 per minute is the rate of incoming ISD calls at TAX POI of Reliance (the word ‘TAX’ stands for Trunk Automatic Exchange).
6. On 25th October, 2004, BSNL issues its circular to all its officers by which continuation of unauthorized diversion in routing of ILD calls is brought to their notice with specific reference to the case of Reliance. In the circular, it is highlighted that although Reliance claims that tampering of CLI has been stopped w.e.f. 16th September, 2004, it is found that international calls have been delivered on the local POI of Reliance, at trunk group meant for intra circle terminating traffic, at various SDCC tandem exchanges, with CLI of Relia
Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Motorola India Private Limited
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.