$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 23 January, 2026 Uploaded on: 27 January, 2026 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 15/2026 & CM APPL. 5088/2026 RI NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Karan Nagrath, Advs.

versus WORLD PHONE INTERNET SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED &

ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv. for R-1 to 4.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. ThepresentappealhasbeenfiledbytheAppellant-RINetworksPrivate Limited under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, assailing the order dated 17^th December, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘impugnedorder’)passedbytheld.SingleJudgeofthis CourtinCS(Comm.) No. 1196 of 2025 titled ‘RI Networks Private Limited Vs World Phone Internet Services Private Limited & Ors.’

3. Videtheimpugnedorder,theapplicationfiledbytheAppellantseeking refund of Court fee has been rejected.

4. The brief background of the present case is that the Appellant had filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court seeking recoveryof outstanding dues, damages and for grant of mandatory and permanent injunction.

5. The said suit was filed against five Defendants i.e., the Respondents herein. Vide a detailed judgment passed by the ld. Single Judge of this Court dated 14^th November, 2025, the plaint filed by the Appellant was rejected in the following terms:

“35. There is, therefore, no separate or independent cause of action qua a non-service provider that would warrant ouster of TDSATAT‘s jurisdiction under Section 14 of the TRAI Act. To that extent, while the judgement of Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India etc.. cannot be doubted, it is not found relevant to the instant dispute.

36. The second argument of Mr. Mehta pertains to subject-matterbar.Itissubmittedbyhimthattheinstant dispute cannot be adjudicated upon by the TDSATAT owing to the subject-matter of the instant dispute. For this argument, reliance was placed on the decisions of theTDSATATinAmritAnejaandHathwayDigitalPvt.

Ltd..

37. In Amrit Aneja, the TDSATAT found that it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a dispute between a master and servant. The petitioner therein was, further, not a service provider, licensor, licensee, or a group of consumers, as is required by Section 14 of the TRAI Act. The judgement is, therefore, distinguishable on facts. Similarly, in Hathway Digital Pvt. Ltd. paragraph no. 12 of the judgement narrates that the primaryrespondentshadnotbeensuedintheircapacity ofserviceproviders,andresultantlythepetition wasnot found maintainable. This judgement also is distinguishable on facts.

38. From the discussion above, it can be safely concludedthatthedisputeintheinstantcaseoriginating from the OMA between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1, both being service providers, and further affecting a substantial number of customers/subscribers is to fall for the exclusive adjudication of the TDSATAT under Section 14 read with Section 15 of the TRAI Act.

39. The present commercial suit is, therefore, to be adjudicatedbytheTDSATATundertheprovisionsofthe TRAIAct.Theinstantsuitisbarredbylawandtheplaint deserves to be rejected.

40. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications also stand disposed of.”

6. The crux of the above judgment is that the Plaintiff i.e., the Appellant herein and the Defendant No.1 i.e., Respondent No. 1 herein, being service providers in terms of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter, ‘TRAI Act’),the appropriate forumfor the Appellant to approach in respect of any disputes with another service provider was the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘TDSAT’)

7. The plaint filed by the Appellant was valued at Rs. 8,84,28,221/- and CourtfeeofRs.8,70,000/- was deposited.Sincethe plaint was rejectedonthe first day