Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 2

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ram Krishna Gautam, Member
M/s Plintron India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
Telecom Petition No. 5 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Sandeep Arya, Mr. Vikram Singh, Ms. Vishurti Chauhan, Ms. Rupali Gupta, Ms. Nidhi Tiwari
For the Respondents: Mr. Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Mr. V Suresh Kumar, Mr. Mukul Singh, Mr. Adhiraj Singh, Ms. Ira Singh, Mr. Arjun Natarajan, Mr. Aayush Kumar, Mr. Nakul Gupta, Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Mr. Ketan Gaur, Mr Aayush Mitruka, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Ms. Nidhisha Garg, Ms. Saumya Gupta

An expired agreement cannot be extended without mutual consent; obligations cease post-term as governed by clear contractual terms.

Headnote:(A) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 - Section 14 - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 4 - Agreement for provision of mobile services - Empanelment Agreement expired by efflux of time with no obligation for renewal or continued service by BSNL due to commercial unviability - The principle of 'must provide' was found not applicable - No claim for damages was pleaded. (Paras 11, 45, 54, 56, 59)

(B) The sanctity of contractual terms - An expired agreement cannot be extended without mutual consent or statutory basis - The Petitioner failed to establish legitimate expectation or estoppel against BSNL - Dismissal of the petition with costs was warranted due to clear contractual obligations. (Paras 48, 50, 58)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO), contended BSNL's failure in fulfilling obligations under the Empanelment Agreement dated 23.10.2017, which expired on 23.10.2022, leading to business losses. Respondents claimed that BSNL had no legal obligation to continue services post-expiry due to non-viability and lack of renewal agreement despite the Petitioner’s assertions and requests.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld that the Empanelment Agreement had expired, and thus Respondent BSNL was not bound to provide continued services. The claims of a 'must provide' obligation were denied based on the agreed contractual terms.

Issues: The main questions included the validity of the expired Empanelment Agreement, whether BSNL had a 'must provide' obligation, and the legality of service disconnection.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal emphasized that a contract ceases to exist after its stipulated term unless renewed through mutual agreement, and it cannot be extended by judicial intervention without clear statutory justification.

Result: Petition dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. empanelment agreement clarity. (Para 1 , 2)
2. role of bsnl as nso. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. terms of the empanelment agreement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. obligations and delays in service. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. failure in compliance with mnp. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. commercial agreement issues. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. legal proceedings initiated. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. respondent's defense regarding maintainability. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
9. dot’s role clarified. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
10. interplay between contractual obligations. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
11. issues framed by the tribunal. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
12. hearing procedures established. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
13. onus of proving facts. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
14. interpreting contracts and obligations. (Para 44 , 45 , 46)
15. jurisdiction of various courts. (Para 47 , 48 , 49)
16. findings finality. (Para 50 , 51 , 52)
17. no extension of expired agreements. (Para 53 , 54 , 55)
18. principle of estoppel. (Para 56 , 57 , 58)
19. conclusion and order. (Para 59)

JUDGMENT

1. This Petition, under Section 14 , of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act , 1997, has been filed by Petitioner - M/s Plintron India Pvt. Limited, with a prayer for a decree of declaration that the duration of Empanelment Agreement, dated 23.10.2017, shall commence from the date on which Respondent No.1, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), has provided all the basic facilities for interconnection/ configurations and its network, was ready and available to host Petitioner/MVNO, for delivering Mobile VNO services, to its subscribers; refrain Respondents from a pedantic calculative approach to Clause 1.2 & Clause 4 of the Empanelment Agreement, dated 23.10.2017, giving a failure to the Empanelment Agreement ; to direct the Respondent No.2, Department of Telecommunications, through its Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Government of India and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Respondent No.3, to verify that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Respondent No.1, had made available MNP gateway within a reasonable timeline to facilitate MNP integration on its network, as per prescribed TRAI and DOT Guidelines/ Regulations for the delivery of mobile services to end consumers, with a further prayer for direction to Respondent No.1, to provide connectivity and other technical support in continuity, as per clause 5.2 of the Empanelment Agreement, dated 23.10.2017, to Petitioner, for smooth provisioning of the IoT & M2M services, in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh Service Areas, and to provide IMSI and MSISDN forthwith on the bulk SIMs 3,50,000 (including 50,000 SIMs issued to M/s Vodafone Idea Limited), provided by the Petitioner, to its Business partners for IoT/ M2M services in Tamil Nadu & Andhra Pradesh Service Areas, during the pendency of the said proceedings and not to disconnect the connectivity of the Petitioner, and not to give effect to the letter dated 26.10.2022 & 28.10.2022, issued by Respondent No.1, till the pendency of the present proceeding.

2. In brief, the memo of Petition, contends that Petitioner is an Indian Multinational MVNO, having expertise in the MVNO business and having a global footprint, as MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator), with a presence in about 30+ countries, across various geographies in the world. ‘Mobile Virtual Network Operator/ MVNO’ is a wireless communication service provider that does not own the wireless infrastructure, instead, it can connect with the NSO/TSP and deliver services to their own (VNOs) set of subscribers. Petitioner was granted a Unified License (VNO), as Virtual Network Operator for 22 service areas, vide License No. 20-536/2016 AS-1, dated 11.05.2017, having its validity for 10 years, with authorization of access services.

3. Respondent No.1, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited(BSNL), is a licensee, under section 4, of Indian Telegraph Act , 1885, is a Central Public Sector, within the complete ownership of Government of India. It was the only NSO/ TSP that w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 2

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNALRam Krishna Gautam, MemberM/s Plintron India Private Limited – AppellantVersusBharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – RespondentTelecom Petition No. 5 of 2024

An expired agreement cannot be extended without mutual consent; obligations cease post-term as governed by clear contractual terms.

Cases Referred (4)

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ram Krishna Gautam, Member
M/s Plintron India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
Telecom Petition No. 5 of 2024