SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 269

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. MANOJ MISRA, MR. MANMOHAN, JJ
ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD – Appellant
Versus
M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPORATION LIMITED – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL | Diary No. 70934/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR, Ms. Nayan Gupta, Adv., Ms. Swati Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Gopal, Adv.
For the Respondents: Shri Aljo K. Joseph

Judicial efficiency requires adherence to established hearing systems rather than dependency on virtual modes, particularly when sufficient infrastructure exists.

Headnote:The Supreme Court addressed the delays in decision-making by the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal regarding two pending review applications. The Court emphasized the inefficiency in the Tribunal's partial adoption of virtual hearings instead of utilizing its established facilities. It mandated TDSAT to conclude hearings promptly and submit progress reports. The ruling specified expectations for parties to avoid unnecessary adjournments and reiterated directives for timely resolution of review applications.

Judgement Key Points

This judgment emphasizes that for efficient legal proceedings, especially in tribunals like the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), physical hearings should be preferred over virtual ones when proper infrastructure is available. The court pointed out that relying solely on virtual hearings can cause delays and inefficiencies. It directed the tribunal to conclude the pending review applications promptly and to submit progress reports. The overall message is that established, in-person hearing systems are more effective for timely justice, and virtual modes should not be used as the only method when better facilities exist [judgement_subject] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .


Table of Content
1. delays attributed to request for adjournments by counsels. (Para 1 , 2)
2. concerns raised about inefficiency in virtual hearing processes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. expectations set for parties to expedite review hearings and progress reporting. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)

ORDER

1. On 07.01.2026, following order was passed:

"1. This appeal is reported to be beyond time by 792 days.

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that against the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 both sides have filed a review.

3. Review Application No.7 of 2023 has been filed by the appellant whereas Review Application No.10 of 2023, which has been filed with a delay of 36 days, is by the respondent. Both review applications have been kept pending for more than 2 years. In such circumstances, this appeal has been filed.

4. Having regard to the above, we deem it appropriate to call for a report from Telcom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi as to why there has been so much delay in deciding the two review applications. Let the report be submitted within three weeks.

5. List this matter on 09.02.2026."

2. Pursuant to the above order, a report has been received from the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal ("TDSAT"). In the Report, it is highlighted that delay in disposal of the two review applications was owing to repeated adjournments sought by Counsels representing parties.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that few adjournments were necessitated on account of hearing through virtual mode as the infrastructure available for virtual hearing is not good.

4. We have also been shown an order directing for hearing of cases through virtual mode only on certain dates.

5. We fail to understand as to why TDSAT is specifying certain dates for hearing through virtual mode only when they have a regular establishment. The facility for virtual hearing is ordinarily to enable a party to attend the hearing through virtual mode and not for the Tribunal to adopt it as the only mode for hearing particularly when it has a permanent establishment for holding regular hearing.

6. Shri Aljo K. Joseph, learned counsel has appeared for the contesting respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that they shall not take unnecessary adjournments in the proceedings pending before TDSAT therefore, some time frame may be fixed for TDSAT to conclude the hearing of the aforesaid two review applications.

8. In view of the above, let this matter be listed again in the fourth week of April, 2026.

9. In the meantime, subject to cooperation of the parties, it is expected that the hearing on the two review applications shall be concluded.

10. When the matter is listed next, fresh report shall be submitted by TDSAT about further progress in the review applications. 11. This order shall be communicated to the Chairman, TDSAT within a week from today.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top