Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 29
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Aftab Alam, CJ, Kuldip Singh, Member
Reliance Telecom Limited – Appellant
Versus
S. Tel Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Petition No. 93 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, Advocate, Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Ruchir Bisaria, Advocate for Mr. Mahesh Agrawala, Advocate
For the Respondent - S. Tel:Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate
The court established that failure to dispute received invoices undermines an alleged defense against payment liability.
Headnote:This case concerns the recovery of dues for Inter-connect Usage Charges as per the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The petitioner, a licensed telecom provider, sought recovery from the respondent, who admitted to receiving invoices but disputed the liability due to alleged deficiencies in the invoices. The court held that the respondent's failure to raise these disputes upon receipt of invoices negated their claims, leading to a ruling in favor of the petitioner. The final outcome declares the amount due along with interest from the filing date.
ORDER
By Aftab Alam, Chairperson –
This petition is for recovery of Rs.1,11,70,648=00 from the respondent as dues of Inter-connect Usage Charges for the period January 2010 to January 2012.
The basic facts of the case are simple and incontrovertible. The petitioner is the holder of licence granted by the Central Government under section 4(ii) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 . At the relevant time the respondent too held a licence under section 4(ii) of the Act. It may, however, be stated at the outset that the respondent’s licence was one of the 122 licences cancelled by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 2 February 2012 in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India 1 .
In regard to the period to which the petition relates, the parties entered into an Inter-connection Agreement for the telecom service areas Bihar, Orissa and Himachal Pradesh on 29 October 2009 and another Inter-connection Agreement for the telecom service areas Assam and North East on 12 December 2009. The two agreements are in identical terms.
The agreement defined “Inter -connect or Inter- connection”, “Inter - connection Seeker”, “Inter - connect Provider” and “IUC” in clause,
“ Interconnect or Interconnection means the commercial and technical arrangements under which S TEL and RTL connect their Networks, equipment and services to enable their customers (as applicable) to access the customers, services and network of other service providers.
Interconnection Seeker means S TEL who has sought the interconnection to the network of RTL Interconnection Provider means RTL to whose network the interconnection is sought by S TEL for providing telecommunication services.
IUC means Interconnect Usage Charge as prescribed by TRAI ”
The expression “Licence” was defined in the two licences with reference to the respective licences held by the parties in the telecom service areas covered by the two licences.
Clause 2.14 dealt with damages for breach of the agreement and provided as under:
“ 2.14 In case of any kind of breach of any of the terms of this Agreement by either Party, the other Party shall be entitled to levy damages. This is without prejudice to any other remedy available to both Parties for fulfillment of their rights. ”
The provisions relating to “Inter - connection Charges and Billing” were contained in clause 12 of the agreement that provided as under:
“ 12. INTERCONNECTION CHARGES AND BILLING
12. 1. The Parties agree that all payments and rates for routing of calls, Access Charges, Interconnection Charges, revenue sharing, rates of Space, Port Charges and other related issues shall be in terms of Schedule 1. The aforesaid charges may be amended from time to time in case of change arising out of mutual discussions, amendment by TRAI or by any judicial or Statutory Authority.
12.2. Bills for call charges will be raised by the Party concerned on a calendar month basis. Each Party shall raise bills for the total number of calls terminated in its network based on accumulated conversation seconds converted into nearest minutes at the end of the month and send to the other Party within 15 days of the end of each month. Detailed Bill Information shall be provided by one Party on request of the other Party and as per Schedule 1. All billing and payments are subject to applicable taxes. The settlement between the Parties, for the Charges payable for the traffic terminating in each other’s network, will be done on a mo nthly basis for the net traffic imbalance between the Parties. The Party terminating higher traffic in the other Party’s network will make payment for the net excess calls terminated, at the rate per minute as mutually agreed. It is agreed between the Parties that payments against the said bills shall be made within 15 days of receipt of invoice (“Due Date’). In case of any delay in payment beyond Due Date, an interest at the rate equal to SBI PLR plus 200 basis points prevailing on the relevant Due Date shall
