Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 6

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
S.B. Sinha, CJ, P.K. Rastogi, Member
Reliance Communications Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. – Respondent
Petition No.324 of 2010 | Petition No.86 of 2011 | Petition No.87 of 2011 | Petition No.92 of 2011 | Petition No.96 of 2011 | Petition No.141 of 2011 | Petition No.156 of 2011 | Petition No.157 of 2011 | Petition No.158 of 2011 | Petition No.159 of 2011 | Petition No.160 of 2011 | Petition No.161 of 2011 | Petition No.162 of 2011 | Petition No.163 of 2011 | Petition No.164 of 2011 | Petition No.165 of 2011 | Petition No.166 of 2011 | Petition No.167 of 2011 | Petition No.168 of 2011 | Petition No.169 of 2011

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocate, Ms.Manali Singhal, Advocate, Mr. Santosh Sachin, Advocate, Mr.Sharath Sampath, Advocate, Mr.Manikya Khanna, Advocate, Ms.Shikha Sarin, Advocate, Ms.Swati Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr.Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate, Mr.K.P.S.Kohli, Advocate, Ms.Amrita Narayan, Advocate

The Interconnection Usage Charges (IUC) include Access Deficit Charges (ADC), and claims for these must adhere to contractual timelines and the statute of limitations, requiring parties to reconcile outstanding amounts accordingly.

Headnote:(A) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 - Section 11(1)(b) - Interconnect Agreement - Access Deficit Charges (ADC) and Interconnection Usage Charges (IUC) - Petitioner challenged legality of bills raised by the Respondent, alleging they were unlawful and unsupported - Respondent was permitted to raise fresh demands for the P-1 period, but claims were barred by limitation; for P-2 period, prior judgments upheld billing, while issues surrounding P-3 period required reconciliation - Interconnection Agreements established that ADC is part of IUC, and disputes over interest rates need balancing for fairness. (Paras 37, 156-164)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a UAS licensee, disputed multiple bills from the Respondent (BSNL) for interconnect usage, claiming they were illegal and unfair, particularly concerning claims on ADC for various periods and the interpretation of clauses within the Interconnect Agreement. The case involved bills totaling significant amounts during the operation of the agreements and prior legal judgments regarding similar issues.

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the legality of certain billing provisions while noting that some claims were outdated due to the statutory limitation period. The Court also emphasized the necessity for reconciliation of accounts between the parties to accurately resolve outstanding disputes, particularly concerning the most recent billing cycle.

Issues: The main question was whether the claims for ADC and IUC were valid and actionable, given the various periods involved and the effect of past judgments on the current disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the bills raised for the P-1 period were barred by limitation, and that contractual provisions surrounding the IUC clearly stated the obligations regarding payment and billing timelines. The court further asserted that both parties should have the same rights in terms of interest charges as part of maintaining a level playing field under the interconnect agreement.

Result: The petitions were partially allowed, calling for account reconciliation for the P-3 period while dismissing the claims for P-1 due to limitation.

JUDGMENT

Background Facts

Petitioner, a UAS Licensee on and from 13.11.2004, has filed this petition inter-alia questioning the legality and/or validity of some bills raised by the Respondent, as being illegal, unjust and unfair as also for a direction that Clause 7.5 of the Addenda VI appended to the Interconnect Agreement be declared ultra-vires, illegal, unconstitutional and invalid.

2. Petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the Respondent- BSNL cannot use any of the provisions of the Interconnect Agreement for the purpose of enforcing demands of ADC, being illegal and invalid.

3. The parties in Petition No.324 of 2010, have placed a large number of documents which will be treated as the lead case. In the said petition, demands dated 20.12.2006, 21.05.2008, 20.08.2008, 11.06.2010, 30.06.2010 and 07.09.2010 are in question.

4. We may for the purpose of appreciating the contention of the parties notice one of the said bills being dated 20.12.2006. It was raised for the period 14.11.2004 to 28.02.2006 for a sum of Rs.9,87,25,798/-. A bill towards interest on the amount said to be outstanding was also raised on or about 20.08.2008 for the period 01.07.2005 to February 2006, claiming a sum of Rs.4,83,26,538/-. Similar bills were raised during the intervening periods.

5. Before, however, proceeding with the matter further, it may be placed on record that bills for three different periods i.e. (a) 01.02.2004 and 13.11.2004 (hereinafter referred to as P-1), (b) 14.11.2004 and 26.08.2005 (hereinafter referred to as P-2); and (c) 27.08.2005 to 28.02.2006 (herein after referred to as P-3) are involved in these petitions.

6. During the aforementioned periods, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 11 (1) (b) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (the Act), inter alia, made three Interconnect Usage Charge Regulations i.e. (a) on 29.10.2003 for the period 01.02.2004 and 31.01.2005; (b) on 06.01.2005 for the period 01.02.2005 and 28.08.2006; and (c) on 23.02.2006 for the period 01.03.2006 and 31.03.2007.

7. We may notice the factual matrix involved in these matters in respect of the Gujarat Circle. Petitioner entered into an agreement with DoT on or about 18.03.1997 in respect thereof. Basic Interconnect Agreement was signed between DoT and the Petitioner for the said Circle on 18.03.2007.

8. Licences were issued to the Petitioner under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to establish, install, maintain and operate the Basic Telephone Service in several service areas of the country on or about 20.07.2001.

9. Another Basic Interconnect Agreement was signed between the parties hereto on or about 21.05.2002. Petitioner migrated from Basic Service Licence to Unified Access Service Licence with effect from 14.11.2003.

10. On or about 28.01.2004, a circular letter was issued purported to be for implementation of the IUC Regulations dated 29.10.2003, paragraph 11 whereof reads as under :-

―11. The CLI based barring facility shall be activated at the PoIs wherever technically feasible to ensure that the traffic handed over to BSNL is in the appropriate trunk groups only. Wherever it is technically not feasible to activate CLI based barring, periodic monitoring of the incoming trunk groups shall be done by BSNL to ensure this objective. The calls received without CLI by BSNL from various operators shall be charged at the highest slab i.e. as for ISD Calls. In case such calls are received by BSNL on a trunk group not meant for such calls then all the traffic received on such trunk group for that month/billing cycle shall be charged at the rates applicable for IUC of incoming ISD Calls.‖

11. On and from 04.03.2005, the TRAI issued a direction to all the service providers to strictly ensure that terminal use of fixed wireless service should be confined to the premises of the subscribers. DoT also issued a direction to that effect on or about 23.03.2005. Simila

Click Here to Read the rest of this document