The main legal principle established is that disputes between service providers in the telecom sector fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) as per the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the abovementioned petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) seeking for the appointment of an Arbitrator.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the petitioner executed an agreement with the respondent on 23rd November, 2011 and the said agreement was executed at Delhi office at AB-6, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.

3. The petitioner on 15th January, 2013 sent a letter to the respondent that it had invested huge amount, however, outstanding amount from September, 2012 was not released to the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent without serving any notice to show cause locked every prime channel from 24th January, 2013 to 2nd February, 2013, though on 28th January, 2013 there was an engagement function of the son of the petitioner and 1000 persons assembled at the office of the petitioner and started causing nuisance and used filthy languages against the petitioner and the family, due to which the image of the petitioner was tarnished who also suffered huge loss. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent on 24th January, 2013 but there was no response. Various reminders were issued but disputes could not be resolved except a letter was received for adjusting the cost of boxes, which was purchased at Rs.500/- per box, but the respondent started adjusting the cost of the boxes at Rs.799/- per box, which was objected and it was also intimated that the payment has not been adjusted from February 2012, till 26th July, 2013 and the petitioner is also entitled for the penal interest on the said amount. The counsel for the petitioner submits that more than Rs. 1 crore is due from the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has rightly invoked the arbitration.

4. The prayer of the present petition is strongly opposed by the respondent. It is argued by Mr.Navin Chawla, learned counsel for the respondent that the present petition is not maintainable. It is also submitted that earlier the petitioner itself had filed petition before TDSAT where no relief was granted. It is submitted that the dispute in the present case is admittedly between two service providers that if two private parties themselves enter into an arbitration agreement in order to avoid the jurisdiction of the statutory Tribunal who is only empowered to decide the same, the benefit under those circumstances cannot be derived by one of the parties. It is argued by Mr. Navin Chawla that the TDSAT is a Special Act, which specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

5. It is an undisputed fact that both the petitioner as well as the respondent are 'service providers' within the meaning of Section 14(a)(ii) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "TRAI Act") therefore, it is to be examined as to whether the dispute is arbitrable or as per Section 15 of the TRAI Act it is only to be determined under the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "TDSAT") which has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present disputes.

6. In order to appreciate the objection of the respondent, Section 14 and Section 15 of the TRAI Act which bear relevance for the adjudication of the present petition have been reproduced herein below:-

"14. Establishment of Appellate Tribunal. - The Central Government shall, by notification, establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to-

(a) adjudicate any dispute -

(i) between a licensor and a licensee;

(ii) between two or more service providers;

(iii) between a service provider and a group of consumers:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in respect of matters relating to

(A) the monopolistic trade practice, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice which are subject