Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 46
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HON’BLE MR. S.B. SINHA, CJ, HON’BLE MR. G. D. GAIHA, J, HON’BLE MR. P.K. RASTOGI, J
M/s Indian Cablenet Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s AB Cable Communication – Respondent
Petition No.222(C) of 2008
For the Petitioner:Mr.Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.Sharath Sampath, Advocate
The court ruled that admissions in pleadings serve as sufficient legal basis to establish liability for debt without additional proof, emphasizing the importance of clear documentation in financial disputes.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act - Section 58 - CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Dispute on subscription fee - Claim made by petitioner for Rs.21,38,170/- based on invoices and agreements - Settlement regarding alleged dues and encroachments discussed on multiple occasions - Evidence shows respondent's admission of liability for Rs.14,25,965/- and pertinent regulations regarding invoicing of dues. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
(B) Contractual Obligations - The court found that admissions made in pleadings are sufficient to hold the respondent accountable for the stated amount without the need for further evidentiary support given the clarity of presented documentation. (Paras 9.1, 9.2)
Facts of the case:
The resolution focuses on the conflict regarding unpaid subscription fees and the interpretation of an earlier settlement involving multiple parties where evidence was presented by both sides regarding payment obligations.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to the amount claimed as per the respondent's admission, resulting in a total due of Rs.14,25,965/- plus interest at 18% per annum.
Issues: The primary issue was the definition of subscription fees and the impact of the settlement reached between parties on claims filed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that admissions made in pleadings eliminate the need for proof of certain facts; therefore, the claim was valid, enforcing the noted financial obligations unto the respondent.
Result: Petition allowed in favor of the petitioner.
ORDER
S.B. Sinha
The petitioner is a Multi Service Operator(MSO).
The respondent is a local cable operator. For recovery of a sum of Rs.21,38,170/- with interest @ 18% thereon, the petitioner has filed this petition. The parties are said to have entered into an agreement on or about 11.06.1997. The said agreement inter alia, contains the mode and manner in which the payments were to be made. It is not in dispute that the parties hereto entered into a settlement on or about 31.07.2006, the relevant portions whereof read as under:
“2. For last 2 years there is encroachment in A.B. Cable’s Network by Samar Mondol and Basiruddin. The issue has been discussed at regular intervals in various forum but could not be resolved. It is now decided that the decisions taken in the meeting dated 23rd April, 2005 which is duly minuted needs to be implemented with immediate effect.
3. A.B. Cable’s dues to ICNCL & Calcom will be crystallized in course of next two weeks. Meanwhile the same is estimated at Rs.25.0 lacs i.e. Rs.8.0 lacs payable to Calcom & Rs.17.0 lacs to ICNCL.
4. Mr.Sanjoy Bose of A.B. Cable has agreed to pay this outstanding both to Calcom & ICNCL on installment basis. Details of which will be determined within next two weeks. It is agreed that payment will begin only after encroachments are redressed.
5. Mr.Sanjoy Bose has since resigned from Silverline Broadband. Copy of his resignation letter is enclosed as ready reference.
6. Sanjoy Bose has also assured us that he will not associate with any activity of Silverline Broadband for now onward.”
It is the case of the petitioner that it had been sending invoices which were received by the respondent.
We may, however, at this stage notice that the proprietors of the respondent concern for the first time in her evidence denied and disputed the receipt of the said invoices.
The petitioner in support of its case has examined one Mr.Atul Kumar Singh. It has also brought on record letters dated 11.4.2006, 15.02.2006 and 16.05.2006. The petitioner has also sent a notice dated 01.092008 asking the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.21,09,815.20p. The respondent is said to have refused to accept the said notice. The petitioner in support of its case has also annexed therewith statement of accounts being Exhibit P-10.
The respondent contends that in terms of the said agreement it was not liable to pay subscription fee @ Rs.1,61,968/- but at the rate of Rs.1,40,000/- per month upto January, 2007 and thereafter @ a sum of Rs.1,47,183/- per month. The further case of the respondent is that a sum of Rs.16 lakhs as shown in the statement of account was not payable to the petitioner.
In this behalf, our attention has been drawn by Mr.Bhatia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the statement of account to contend that the opening balance shown in the Statement of Account of Rs.16,24,596/- has have been written off on or about 31st March, 2007 which would correspond to the opening balance as would appear for the entries dated 31.03.2007 being a sum of Rs.14,08,523/- and Rs.2,16,073/-.
Mr.Bhatia, in that view of the matter would contend that the petitioner is at least entitled to a decree for a sum or Rs.14,25,965/- being the admitted amount. The admission of the respondents in this behalf as noticed heretobefore is that the subscription fee payable was Rs.1,40,000/- per month which was payable till January, 2007 and thereafter @ Rs.1,47,183/-. It furthermore appears that whenever any payment used to be made by the respondent, due receipts therefor used to be granted. The petitioner has brought on record the latest receipt in this behalf.
Mr.Bhatia submitted that the respondent claiming the benefit of payment of the amount service tax also applied for and received the benefit of CENVAT credit relying on or on the basis of the receipts of the payments obtained by it from the petitioner; but despite the same, however, the same having not been produced, an adverse inference should be drawn against the re
