Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 18
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Aftab Alam, CJ, Kuldip Singh, J
Vodafone India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. – Respondent
Petition No. 518 of 2012
For the Appellant: Mr. Navin Chawla, Mr. Santosh Sachin
For the Respondent: Mr. Maneesha Dhir, Mr. K.P.S. Kohli, Ms. Neha Singh
Court determined that withholding payment by BSNL for signaling charges was unjustified and affirmed the reciprocity of interest rates in the Interconnect Agreement.
Headnote:(A) Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 4 - Interconnect Usage Charges (IUC) - Recovery of short payment claim of Rs.10,58,00,328/-; withholding of Rs.4,32,01,052/- on signaling charges deemed incorrect; limitation period of claims considered. (Para 1, 7, 8, 14)
(B) Interconnection Agreements - Clauses on payment of interest for delayed payments; reciprocity principle established whereby both parties must adhere to same interest rates; prevailing rules on raising fresh bills based on CDRs discussed. (Para 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
Vodaphone claimed IUC due from BSNL; issues of withheld payments, limitation, and interest rates under the Interconnect Agreement raised.
Findings of Court:
Court ordered payment of Rs.4,32,01,052/- with applicable interest rates as per agreement, subject to Supreme Court outcome.
Issues: The primary issue was whether BSNL's withholding of payment for signaling charges was justified and the impacts of limitation on claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled non-compliance with the terms of agreement by BSNL in withholding payments; no merit in claims barred by limitation; interest rates to apply reciprocally.
Result: Petition partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for payment based on interconnect usage charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. disputes regarding signaling charges withholding. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's ruling on the impetus for fresh billing. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. issues on limitation and responsibility for claims. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. payments must align with reciprocal interest provisions. (Para 10 , 12) |
ORDER
Kuldip Singh:
It is a recovery petition for an amount of Rs.10,58,00,328/- which as per the Petitioner is due on account of short payment of Interconnect Usage Charges (IUC) to be paid by the Respondent.
The Petitioner is also claiming interest at the rates as prescribed in the Interconnect Agreement from the due date of payment till the same is made.
2. The Petitioner has a license granted under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act , 1885 for provision of Unified Access Service in the Service area of Mumbai Telecom Circle. The Respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking having telecom network in the entire country and providing telecom services in India excepting Mumbai and Delhi. For the purpose of interconnection between services of the Petitioner and the Respondent, the parties entered into an Interconnect Agreement No. 114- 10/2003-Regin/Mumbai dated 19.12.2003 as modified by various addendums.
3. During the pendency of the petition, the parties were able to resolve some of their disputes before the Mediation Centre of the Tribunal. However, disputes with regard to the following four issues still remain:-
Issue I: An amount of Rs.4,32,01,052/- withheld by the Respondent vide its impugned letters dated 21.03.2012 and 20.06.2012 on account of signaling charges. This amount has been withheld from the IUC bills raised by the Petitioner for the months of December, 2011 to April, 2012 on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to pay the signaling link charges raised upon it vide invoice of the Respondent dated 29.03.2010 for an amount of Rs. 14,37,52,782/-.
Issue II: A claim of Rs.55,08,823/- pertaining to the period from May, 2008 to July, 2009. This claim has been rejected by the Respondent on the grounds that (i) the same is barred by the period of limitation (ii) It does not have CDRs for this period.
Issue III: A deduction of Rs.45,81,045/- made by the Respondent for non- payment of its invoice dated 21.08.2007 which was for interest on delayed payment of IUC charges by the Petitioner for the bills dated 13.04.2004 and 13.09.2004.
Issue IV: An amount of Rs.9,51,981/- which the Respondent refused to pay stating that it has not received any invoice for the same.
5. In regard to the first issue pertaining to the amount withheld due to signaling charges, Ms. Dhir, learned counsel appearing for Respondent submitted that the said amount was withheld against invoices dated 29.03.2010 issued by the Petitioner for Rs.14,37,52,782/- towards signaling charges. Ms. Dhir submitted that in terms of the Interconnect Agreement, if a dispute is raised with regard to a bill, 50 per cent of the disputed amount is required to be paid. Further, as per clause 7.3.1 (iii) of the Interconnect Agreement, though the Petitioner is required to make all payments without netting off, BSNL can resort to netting off.
6. Mr. Navin Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent-BSNL could not have withheld any amount on account of signaling charges in view of the judgment of the Tribunal in Petition No.57 of 2010 - Aircel Limited Vs. BSNL and another, and other petitions in the batch. The matter in regard to signaling charges was challenged before the Tribunal in that petition and the Tribunal vide judgement dated 01.09.2010 had allowed the petitions and therefore the bill dated 29.03.2010 issued by the Respondent in this regard was not enforceable.
7. In the case of Aircel Ltd. Vs. BSNL above, the petitioners therein had come to the Tribunal challenging the bills raised by BSNL on account of signaling charges. The Tribunal in that case had concluded as under:
“We
