{"id":106701,"date":"2007-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007"},"modified":"2018-02-19T10:29:32","modified_gmt":"2018-02-19T04:59:32","slug":"union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) … on 23 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) … on 23 August, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: P Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1033 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTATA TELESERVICES (MAHARASHTRA) LTD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/08\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. SEMA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tThis appeal by the Union of India, the respondent in
\na proceeding before the Telecom Disputes Settlement &
\nAppellate Tribunal (for short, the TDSAT) in a petition filed
\nby the respondent herein under Section 14 of the Telecom
\nRegulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (for short the Act) is
\nunder Section 18 of the Act.  The respondent approached the
\nTDSAT  praying for a declaration that the action of the Union
\nof India in raising a claim and in recovering the amount as per
\nits demand dated 10.8.1999, was bad in law and be set aside,
\nfor a declaration that the set off made by invoking condition 19
\nof the licence the respondent had with the appellant in respect
\nof the Maharashtra Service Area was illegal and unauthorised
\nand for setting aside the same, for directing the appellant to
\nrefund an amount of Rs.50 crores together with interest from
\nthe date of the purported set off of that amount with the
\namounts due to the respondent till the date of refund and for
\nother consequential and incidental reliefs.  In answer, the
\nappellant contended that it was entitled to make the set off
\nand the set off made was authorised and legal and that there
\nis no reason to interfere with the set off and the respondent
\nwas not entitled to the recovery of Rs.50 crores with interest
\nthereon.  A claim that the appellant is entitled to recover as
\ndamages from the respondent a sum of Rs.654.25 crores
\ntowards the loss suffered by it on account of the respondent
\nherein failing to fulfil its obligations under the Letter of Intent
\nissued to it in respect of the Karnataka Telecom Circle was
\nalso put forward.  The TDSAT upheld the claim of the
\nrespondent, rejected the claim of the appellant that it was
\nentitled to a legal or equitable set off of the sum of Rs.50
\ncrores and more importantly held that it has no jurisdiction to
\nentertain a counter claim at the instance of the appellant.  Of
\ncourse, it was also pointed out that the counter claim itself
\nwas not properly framed and was somewhat vague.  Thus the
\nclaim of the respondent was accepted and a direction was
\nissued to the appellant to refund the sum of Rs.50 crores to
\nthe respondent with interest thereon at 17 per cent per annum
\nfrom the date the said amount was appropriated by the
\nappellant till its payment along with costs of the proceedings.
\nThis adjudication of the TDSAT is challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tSection 18 of the Act provides for an appeal to this
\nCourt from an order or decision of the TDSAT whether in
\nexercise of its appellate jurisdiction or in exercise of its original
\njurisdiction on one or more of the grounds specified in Section
\n100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The two substantial
\nquestions of law sought to be adjudicated on are (1) whether
\nthe TDSAT was justified in not accepting the plea of set off
\nraised by the appellant and (2) whether the TDSAT has not
\nfailed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law in
\ndeclining to go into the merits of the counter claim made by
\nthe appellant and in rejecting the same as being not
\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe question whether the plea of set off, whether
\nlegal or equitable is liable to be upheld might depend on our
\nconclusion on the question whether a counter claim at the
\ninstance of the Union of India in a proceeding initiated before
\nthe TDSAT  by a licensee or service provider, is maintainable.
\nIf we hold that the counter claim is maintainable, necessarily
\nthe same would have to be adjudicated on, on merits and the
\nresult of such an adjudication would have impact on the plea
\nof set off put forward by the appellant.  Of course, if our
\nanswer to the said question is that the counter claim is not
\nmaintainable, then we have to decide independently whether
\nthe finding entered by the TDSAT  on the plea of set off is
\nvitiated by a substantial error of law or not.  We will, therefore,
\nfirst tackle the question whether the counter claim made by
\nthe Union of India was maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tIt may be true that in the prayer portion in the
\nwritten statement an order or decree in terms of the counter
\nclaim had not been sought for by the appellant.  But the claim
\nas made in the written statement relates to the claim based on
\nthe failure of the respondent, after having conveyed its
\nacceptance of the Letter of Intent to provide service in the
\nKarnataka Telecom Circle and the damages allegedly suffered
\nby the appellant as a consequence and the entitlement of the
\nappellant to reimbursement of the specified sum from the
\nrespondent.  Even if there is some vagueness in the counter
\nclaim, as felt by the TDSAT, we think that the TDSAT might
\nhave directed the appellant before us, to make its counter
\nclaim more specific and in a proper manner.  After all, a defect
\nof deficiency could be permitted to be cured.   We are,
\ntherefore, not impressed by the argument on behalf of the
\nrespondent before us that the counter claim was rather vague
\nand the same was rightly rejected for that reason by the
\nTDSAT.   After all, this vagueness can be directed to be
\nremoved in the interests of justice, if it were to be held that the
\ncounter claim can be maintained by the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tAccording to the TDSAT, Section 16 of the Act
\nprescribes the procedure and powers of the TDSAT.  No right
\nhas been given by that provision to the Union of India to make
\na counter claim in a petition filed by a petitioner before the
\nTDSAT seeking certain amounts as due from the Union of
\nIndia as the licensor.   The question is whether this restricted
\nview taken by the TDSAT is justified on the scheme of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe Objects and Reasons for enacting the Act and
\ncreating the TDSAT indicate that the TDSAT will consist of a
\nChairperson who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court of
\nIndia or a Chief Justice of a High Court, and two to four
\nmembers who have held the post of Secretary or Additional
\nSecretary to the Government of India or any equivalent post in
\nthe Central Government or the State Government for a
\nminimum period of three years.   The powers and functions of
\nthe Authority, as set out in the Objects and Reasons, include
\nsettlement of disputes between service providers.  The
\npreamble to the Act indicates that it is an Act to provide for
\nthe establishment of the TDSAT to regulate the
\ntelecommunication service, adjudicate disputes, dispose of
\nappeals and to protect the interests of service providers and
\nconsumers of the telecom sector, to promote and ensure
\norderly growth of the telecom sector and for matters connected
\ntherewith or incidental thereto.  The Act defines Licensee as
\nany person licensed under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the
\nIndian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) for providing specified
\npublic telecommunication service.  It defines Licensor as
\nmeaning the Central Government or the telegraph authority
\nwho grants a licence under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph
\nAct, 1885 (13 of 1885).  A service provider is defined as
\nmeaning, the Government as a service provider and it includes
\na licensee.  Section 14 of the Act deals with the establishment
\nof the TDSAT.  It appears to be appropriate to set down the
\nsaid Section hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
14.\tEstablishment of Appellate Tribunal
\nThe Central Government shall, by notification,
\nestablish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as
\nthe Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate
\nTribunal to\n<\/p>\n
(a)\t   adjudicate any dispute\n<\/p>\n
 (i)  between a lincesor and a licensee;\n<\/p>\n
\t     (ii) between two or more service providers;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)between a service provider and a group of
\nconsumers:\n<\/p>\n
      Provided that nothing in this clause shall
\napply in respect of matters relating to <\/p>\n
(A)\t      the monopolistic trade practice, restrictive
\ntrade practice and unfair trade practice which
\nare subject to the jurisdiction of the
\nMonopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
\nCommission established under sub-section (1)
\nof Section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive
\nTrade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969);\n<\/p>\n
(B)\t    the complaint of an individual consumer
\nmaintainable before a Consumer Disputes
\nRedressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes
\nRedressal Commission or the National
\nConsumer Redressal Commission established
\nunder section 9 of the Consumer Protection
\nAct, 1986 (68 of 1986);\n<\/p>\n
(C)\t    dispute between telegraph authority and
\nany other person referred to in sub-section (1)
\nof section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
\n(13 of 1885);\n<\/p>\n
(b)   hear and dispose of appeal against any
\ndirection, decision or order of the Authority
\nunder this Act.<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThe Section indicates that the TDSAT has been
\nconstituted to adjudicate on any dispute between a licensor
\nand a licensee or between two or more service providers.
\nThough it also includes adjudication on a dispute between a
\nservice provider and a group of consumers, it excludes matters
\ncoming within the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and
\nRestrictive Trade Practices Commission  established under the
\nMonopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1964, the
\ncomplaint of an individual consumer that is maintainable
\nbefore a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and a dispute
\nbetween a telegraph authority and any person referred to in
\nSection 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.   Section 14A of
\nthe Act provides that the Central Government or a State
\nGovernment or a local authority or any person may make an
\napplication to the Appellate Tribunal for adjudication of any
\ndispute referred to in clause (a) of Section 14.  Section 14A,
\ntherefore, contemplates not only the filing of a claim before the
\nTDSAT by a licensee or a consumer, but also by the Central
\nGovernment or a State Government which could be a licensor
\nor a service provider.  Section 14B deals with the composition
\nof TDSAT.  It is to consist of a Chairperson and not more than
\ntwo Members to be appointed, by notification, by the Central
\nGovernment.  The selection of the Chairperson and Members
\nof the Appellate Tribunal shall be made by the Central
\nGovernment in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
\nSection 14C provides the qualification of the Chairperson and
\nthe Members and the Chairperson has either to be a Judge of
\nthe Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of a High Court or a
\nretired Judge of the Supreme Court of a retired Chief Justice
\nof the High Court.  A Member has to be one who has held the
\npost of Secretary to the Government of India or any equivalent
\npost in the Central Government or the State Government for a
\nperiod of not less than two years or a person who is well
\nversed in the field of technology, telecommunication,
\nindustry, commerce or administration.  Under Section 14 of
\nthe Act, the jurisdiction of the TDSAT has to be exercised by a
\nBench consisting of one member or two members and in case
\nof difference of opinion between two members, the point of
\ndifference has to be referred to the Chairperson, who shall
\ndecide the point himself and the ultimate decision will be
\naccording to the majority opinion.  Section 15 ousts the
\njurisdiction of the Civil Court and it reads thus:
\n15.\tCivil court not to have jurisdiction
\nNo civil court shall have jurisdiction to
\nentertain any suit or proceeding in respect of
\nany matter which the Appellate Tribunal is
\nempowered by or under this Act to determine
\nand no injunction shall be granted by any
\ncourt or other authority in respect of any
\naction taken or to be taken in pursuance of
\nany power conferred by or under this Act.<\/p>\n
8.\t\tSection 16 of the Act provides that the TDSAT  shall
\nnot be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil
\nProcedure, but will be guided by the principles of natural
\njustice and subject to the other provisions of the Act have the
\npower to regulate its own procedure.  It is also to have the
\nspecified powers under the Code of Civil Procedure like
\nsummoning of witnesses, discovery, issue of requisition of any
\npublic record, issue of commission, review of its decisions,
\ndismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte, for
\nrestoring an application dismissed for default or setting aside
\na decision rendered ex parte and any other matter which may
\nbe prescribed.  Sub-section (3) of Section 16 specifies that
\nevery proceeding before the TDSAT shall be deemed to be a
\njudicial proceeding in terms of the Indian Penal Code and the
\nTDSAT shall be deemed to be a civil court for the  purpose of
\nSection 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure.   Section 17 confers right on the parties to legal
\nrepresentation.  Parties could authorise one or more chartered
\naccountants, company secretaries, cost accountants or legal
\npractitioners or any of its officers to represent its case.
\nSection 18 confers the right of appeal to the Supreme Court on
\na substantial question of law.   Section 19 provides that orders
\npassed by the TDSAT shall be executable as decrees through
\nthe TDSAT, but it has also the power to transmit any order
\nmade by it to a civil court to execute the order as if it were a
\ndecree made by that court.  Section 20 provides for penalties
\nfor wilful failure to comply with the orders of the TDSAT.
\nSection 27 of the Act one again indicates that no civil court
\nhas jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Authority is
\nempowered by or under the Act to determine.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThe conspectus of the provisions of the Act clearly
\nindicates that disputes between the licensee or licensor,
\nbetween two or more service providers which takes in the
\nGovernment and includes a licensee and between a service
\nprovider and a group of consumers are within the purview of
\nthe TDSAT.  A plain reading of the relevant provisions of the
\nAct in the light of the preamble to the Act and the Objects and
\nReasons for enacting the Act, indicates that disputes between
\nthe concerned parties, which would involve significant
\ntechnical aspects, are to be determined by a specialised
\ntribunal constituted for that purpose.  There is also an ouster
\nof jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any suit or
\nproceeding in respect of any matter which the TDSAT is
\nempowered by or under the Act to determine.  The civil court
\nalso has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction in respect of
\nany action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power
\nconferred by or under the Act.  The constitution of the TDSAT
\nitself indicates that it is chaired by a sitting or retired Judge of
\nthe Supreme Court or sitting or a retired Chief Justice of the
\nHigh Court, one of the highest judicial officers in the hierarchy
\nand the members thereof have to be of the cadre of secretaries
\nto the Government, obviously well experienced in
\nadministration and administrative matters.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tThe Act is seen to be a self contained Code intended
\nto deal with all disputes arising out of telecommunication
\nservices provided in this country in the light of the National
\nTelecom Policy, 1994.  This is emphasised by the Objects and
\nReasons also.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tNormally, when a specialised tribunal is constituted
\nfor dealing with disputes coming under it of a particular
\nnature taking in serious technical aspects, the attempt must
\nbe to construe the jurisdiction conferred on it in a manner as
\nnot to frustrate the object sought to be achieved by the Act.  In
\nthis context, the ousting of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
\ncontained in Section 15 and Section 27 of the Act has also to
\nbe kept in mind.  The subject to be dealt with under the Act,
\nhas considerable technical overtones which normally a civil
\ncourt, at least as of now, is ill-equipped to handle and this
\naspect cannot be ignored while defining the jurisdiction of the
\nTDSAT.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tSection 14A of the Act gives the right to the Central
\nGovernment, or to the State Government to approach TDSAT
\non its own.  Going by the definitions in the Act, both
\nGovernments could be service providers.  The Central
\nGovernment could also be the licensor.  Thus, either as a
\nlicensor or a service provider, the Central Government could
\nmake an application to TDSAT seeking an adjudication of any
\ndispute between it and the licensee or between it and another
\nservice provider or between it and a group of consumers.  It
\nhas actually to make its claim in TDSAT.  There is no reason
\nto whittle down the right given to the Central Government to
\napproach the TDSAT for an adjudication of its claim which
\ncomes under Section 14(1) of the Act.   Normally, a right to
\nmake a claim would also include a right to make a cross-claim
\nor counter claim in the sense that the Central Government
\ncould always make an independent claim on matters covered
\nunder the Act and such a claim will have to be entertained by
\nthe TDSAT.  This the Central Government could do even while
\nit is defending a claim made against it in TDSAT, by way of a
\nseparate application.  If a subject matter is capable of being
\nraised before the TDSAT by the Central Government or the
\nState Government by way of a claim by making an application
\nunder Section 14 of the Act, it would not be logical to hold that
\nthe same claim could not be made by way of a counter claim
\nwhen the other side, namely, the licensee or consumers, had
\nalready approached the TDSAT with a claim of their own and
\nthe Central Government is called upon to defend it.  It is,
\ntherefore, not possible to accept an argument that a counter
\nclaim by the Central Government or State Government cannot
\nbe entertained by the TDSAT.  We hold that the TDSAT has
\njurisdiction to entertain a counter claim in the light of Section
\n14(1) and 14A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tThe thrust of the argument on behalf of the
\nrespondent before us was, in a case where, a licence had not
\nactually been issued to a party by the Central Government,
\nthe dispute could not be said to be one between a licensor and
\na licensee, contemplated by Section 14(a)(i) or (ii) of the Act.  It
\nis submitted that only on the actual grant of a licence, a
\nperson would become a licensee under the Central
\nGovernment and only a dispute arising after the grant of a
\nlicence would come within the purview of the Act.  The
\nwording of the definition of licensee is emphasised in support.
\nConsidering the purpose for which the Act is brought into
\nforce and the TDSAT is created, we think that there is no
\nwarrant for accepting such a narrow approach or to adopt
\nsuch a narrow construction.  It will be appropriate to
\nunderstand the scope of Section 14(a)(i) of the Act and for that
\nmatter Section 14(a)(ii) of the Act also, as including those to
\nwhom licenses were intended to be issued and as taking in
\nalso disputes that commence on the tender or offer of a person
\nbeing accepted.  In other words, a dispute commencing with
\nthe acceptance of a tender leading to the possible issue of a
\nlicence and disputes arising out of the grant of licence even
\nafter the period has expired would all come within the purview
\nof Section 14(a) of the Act.  To put it differently, Section 14
\ntakes within its sweep disputes following the issue of a Letter
\nof Intent pre grant of actual licence as also disputes arising
\nout of a licence granted between a quondam licensee and the
\nlicensor.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tIn the case on hand, the Notice Inviting Tender
\ndefined a licensee as a registered Indian Company that will be
\nawarded licence for providing the service.  Now, pursuant to
\nthat invitation, the predecessor of the respondent submitted
\nits tender and the appellant accepted it.  A Letter of Intent was
\nalso issued.  The respondent accepted and started negotiating
\nfor certain modifications, which apparently the appellant was
\nwilling to consider.  But ultimately, the contract did not come
\ninto being.  The licence was not actually granted.  It is the case
\nof the appellant that the appellant had suffered considerable
\nloss because of the respondent walking out of the obligation
\nundertaken by acceptance of the Letter of Intent.  According to
\nthe learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
\nappellant, such a dispute would also come within the purview
\nof Section 14 of the Act going by the definition of licensee and
\nthe meaning given to it in the Notice Inviting Tenders.  The
\nargument of learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
\nrespondent is that the expressions licensor and licensee
\nare defined in the Act and the respondent had not become a
\nlicensee and the appellant had not become a licensor since the
\nagreement was never entered into between the parties for
\nproviding telecom services in the Karnataka Telecom Circle
\nand the attempt to rope in an intending licensee to whom a
\nLetter of Intent has been issued or the entering into a contract
\nis proposed, cannot be countenanced since the respondent
\nhas not become a licensee within the meaning of the Act and
\nconsequently this was not a dispute that came within the
\npurview of Section 14(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tWe have already indicated that a specialised
\ntribunal has been constituted for the purpose of dealing with
\nspecialised matters and disputes arising out of licenses
\ngranted under the Act.  We therefore do not think that there is
\nany reason to restrict the jurisdiction of the tribunal so
\nconstituted by keeping out of its purview a person whose offer
\nhas been accepted and to whom a letter of intent is issued by
\nthe Government and who had even accepted that letter of
\nintent.  Any breach or alleged breach of obligation arising after
\nacceptance of the offer made in response to a Notice Inviting
\nTender, would also normally come within the purview of a
\ndispute that is liable to settled by the specialised tribunal.  We
\nsee no reason to restrict the expressions licensor or
\nlicensee occurring in Section 14(a)(i) of the Act and to
\nexclude a person like the respondent who had been given a
\nLetter of Intent regarding the Karnataka Circle, who had
\naccepted the Letter of Intent but was trying to negotiate some
\nfurther terms of common interest before a formal contract was
\nentered into and the work was to be started.  To exclude
\ndisputes arising between the parties thereafter on the failure
\nof the contract to go through, does not appear to be warranted
\nor justified considering the purpose for which the TDSAT has
\nbeen established and the object sought to be achieved  by the
\ncreation of a specialised tribunal.  In Cellular Operators
\nAssociation of India and others  vs. Union of India and
\nothers<\/a> [(2003) 3 SCC 186] this Court had occasion to consider
\nthe spread of Sections 14 and 14A of the Act.  This Court held
\nthat the scope of Sections 14 and 14A are very wide and is not
\nconfined by restrictions generally imposed by judge made law
\non the tribunal exercising an appellate jurisdiction.  Of course,
\ntheir Lordships were considering in particular, the case of
\nappellate jurisdiction.  But this Court further said that the
\ntribunal has the power to adjudicate on any dispute but while
\nanswering the dispute, due weight had to be given to the
\nrecommendations of the authority under the Act which
\nconsists of experts.  This decision, though it did not directly
\ndeal with the power of the TDSAT as the original authority but
\nwas dealing with the power of the TDSAT  as an appellate
\nauthority and the power of this Court in appeal, clearly gives
\nan indication that there is no need to whittle down the scope
\nof Sections 14 and 14A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tIt has also to be noted that while prescribing the
\nprocedure under Section 16 of the Act, what is said is that the
\nTDSAT shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the
\nCode of Civil Procedure but it shall be guided by the principles
\nof natural justice.  It is significant to note that it is not a case
\nof exclusion of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure
\nand conferment of specific powers in terms of sub-section (2)
\nof that Section.  It is really a right given to the TDSAT even to
\ngo outside the procedural shackles imposed by the Code of
\nCivil Procedure while dealing with a dispute before it.
\nTherefore, it will be difficult to keep out the provisions for the
\nfiling of a counter claim enshrined in Order VIII Rule 6A of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure which could be applied by the TDSAT.
\nThe sweep of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code now takes in even
\nclaims independent of the one put forward in the application if
\nit is one the respondent therein has against the applicant.  On
\nthe whole, we are of the view that the TDSAT was in error in
\ndismissing the counter claim as not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tIn the light of our finding that the counter claim
\nwas maintainable and it requires to be investigated, we think
\nthat the proper course is to set aside the finding rendered by
\nthe TDSAT on the plea of set off raised by the appellant. This
\nis in view of the fact that acceptance of the counter claim or
\neven a part thereof might throw open the question of legal or
\nequitable set-off, to be considered in the light of the finding on
\nthe counter claim. Therefore, we think this to be an appropriate
\ncase where we should reopen the whole matter without going
\ninto the merits of the contentions of parties on the plea of set
\noff raised by the appellant and leave the question to be decided
\nby the TDSAT along with the counter claim that has been
\nmade by the appellant. On taking note of the objection that
\nthe counter claim has not been made specific and has not
\nbeen put forward in a proper manner, we are satisfied that it
\nwould be appropriate to direct the appellant to make a proper
\ncounter claim before the TDSAT within three months from
\ntoday.  The TDSAT thereafter will give the respondent an
\nopportunity to file its written statement to the counter claim
\nand then decide the claim made by the respondent and the
\ncounter claim afresh in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tWe, thus, allow this appeal and setting aside the
\ndecision of the TDSAT, remand the claim and the counter-
\nclaim for a fresh adjudication and disposal in accordance with
\nlaw.  We leave the parties to suffer their respective costs in
\nthis Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) … on 23 August, 2007 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: H.K. Sema, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1033 of 2004 PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT: TATA TELESERVICES (MAHARASHTRA) LTD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/08\/2007 BENCH: H.K. SEMA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) ... on 23 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) ... on 23 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-19T04:59:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) … on 23 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-19T04:59:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4429,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) ... on 23 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-19T04:59:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) … on 23 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) ... on 23 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) ... on 23 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-19T04:59:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) … on 23 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-19T04:59:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007"},"wordCount":4429,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007","name":"Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) ... on 23 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-19T04:59:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-tata-teleservices-maharashtra-on-23-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) … on 23 August, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106701","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106701"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106701\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}