Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 32950
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J
QUADRANT TELEVENTURES LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ATC TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ANR. – Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM)-396/2019
Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Yashvardhan, Mr. Nikhil Y. Chawla, Mr. Gyanendra Shukla, Ms. Kritika Nagpal, Mr. Pranav Das, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manish Jha, Ms. Shalini Sati Prasad, Mr. Zain Maqbool, Ms. Mehrunissa Anand, Mr. Arsh Rampal, Advs. for R-1.
The court upheld the arbitral award, affirming the arbitrator's jurisdiction and the validity of claims, emphasizing limited grounds for setting aside awards under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Challenge to arbitral award - The award dated 25.05.2019 allowed claims of Respondent No. 1 and rejected counter-claims of the petitioner - The petitioner, Quadrant Televentures Ltd., contended that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction and that the claims were time-barred - The arbitrator found the claims valid and enforceable, emphasizing the contractual obligations and the absence of evidence for the petitioner's defenses - The court upheld the award, stating that the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract was reasonable and within jurisdiction. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 12, 40, 55)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Quadrant Televentures Ltd., challenged an arbitral award favoring ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. regarding unpaid invoices and exit penalties after prematurely vacating telecom sites. The petitioner argued that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction and that the claims were time-barred.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the arbitrator had jurisdiction and that the claims were valid, emphasizing the contractual obligations and the lack of evidence for the petitioner's defenses. The award was upheld as reasonable and within jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issues included whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and whether the claims were time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract was reasonable and that the claims were valid, emphasizing the limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,J :
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the A&C Act") challenging the Award dated 25.05.2019 (hereinafter "impugned award") passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator whereby the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has allowed the claims of Respondent No. 1 and rejected the counter-claims of the petitioner.
2. Briefly stating, the facts of the present case are that Essar Commvision Limited, being the predecessor-in interest of the Petitioner, was awarded the BSO license in the year 1997 for the Punjab service area. Thereafter, New Telecom Policy (NTP) was announced in 1999, which allowed the licensees to migrate from a Fixed License Fee regime to a Revenue Sharing Regime and the licenses to be granted for an initial period of 20 years extendable by an additional period of 10 years. In November 2003, Union of India on the recommendation of the sector Regulator, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as TRAI) introduced the Unified Access service (UAS) licensing regime, permitting an access service provider to offer both fixed and/or mobile services under the same license, using any technology and also gave an option to the existing operators to either continue under the present regime or migrate to the new UAS License in the existing service area.
3. The Petitioner‘s license originally a Basic Service Operation (BSO) license was converted to UASL in November 2003 to continue to provide wireless services in the already allocated/contracted spectrum and permitted to operate in the same service area in which it was already operating. However, the effective date of the UASL was to run from original date i.e. 30.09.1997 and not 14.11.2003 on which the UASL was executed between the Petitioner and the DoT.
4. A Master Service Agreement dated 18.05.2006 was executed between HFCL Infotel Ltd. (the erstwhile name of the Petitioner) and Tata Teleservices Ltd. A MSA was executed between Quipo Telecom Infrastructure Ltd. & HFCL Infotel Ltd. (the Petitioner herein) was executed on 20.11.2007. Another MSA was executed between Datacom Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (erstwhile name of Videocon Telecommunications Ltd., Respondent No. 2 herein) and Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Ltd. An Addendum Agreement dated 22.01.2009 was executed between Datacom Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Ltd. to QTIL MSA dated 01.11.2008 regarding Clause 1.4.1 of the said MSA. Another MSA was executed between Wireless-TT Info Services Ltd. and Datacom Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on 14.08.2009 ("WTTIL MSA"). An Addendum Agreement dated 20.05.2010 was executed between VTL and Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Ltd. to MSA dated 01.11.2008 whereby the Petitioner was included as a Party under the QTIL MSA dated 01.11.2008 and all the obligations and the benefits arising out of MSA dated 01.11.2008 were made be applicable and available to Petitioner for GSM sites in Punjab Circle.
5. An Addendum Agreement dated 20.05.2010 was executed between VTL (Respondent No. 2), WTTIL & HFCL (the Petitioner herein) whereby the Petitioner was included as a Party under the WTTIL MSA dated 14.08.2009 and all the obligations and the benefits arising out of MSA dated 14.08.2009 were made applicable and available to Respondent No. 1 for GSM sites in Punjab Circle. An Addendum Agreement dated 27.12.2010 was executed between Viom Networks Ltd., (Respondent No.1), Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner. Viom Networks Ltd., Viom Infra Networks (Maharashtra) Ltd., Respondent No. 2. and the Petitioner entered into a MOU dated 12.12.2011 to settle certain disputes that had arisen. Supplementary agreement was executed between the parties to settle the disputes on 12.09.2013.
6. Since the period of the UASL held by the Petitioner was due to expire in September 2017, the Petitioner requested the DOT to allow it to use the GSM spectrum for a period of twenty years from the date of allocation of GSM spectrum (
