{"id":192795,"date":"1998-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998"},"modified":"2016-04-07T09:50:10","modified_gmt":"2016-04-07T04:20:10","slug":"dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998","title":{"rendered":"Dss Mobile Communications … vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Dss Mobile Communications … vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 (48) DRJ 1<\/div>\n
Author: D M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: D M Sharma<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
DR. M.K. Sharma, J. <\/p>\n
1. By  this order I propose to dispose of I.A. 7956\/1998 arising  out  of Suit  No.1952\/1998  filed by the plaintiff praying for  an  injunction  re-straining  the defendant No.1 from encashing the financial bank  guarantees for an aggregate sum of Rs.11,78,30,000\/- all dated 5.11.1997 in any manner till the disposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
 2.   The  plaintiff has filed a suit in this court against  the  defendants seeking  for a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and  against the  defendant No.1 restraining the defendant No.1 from encashing the  said bank guarantees and also for restraining the defendant No.2 from  releasing any amount to defendant No.1 against the said financial bank guarantees.\n<\/p>\n
 3.   In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel  appearing  for the parties it would be necessary to state some  background  facts leading  to the presentation of the present suit and filing of the  injunction application.\n<\/p>\n
 4.   The plaintiff entered into a license agreement with the Department  of Telecommunications, Union of India\/respondent No.1 on 30.8.1994 for providing  Radio  Paging  Service in 10 cities namely  Mumbai,  Delhi,  Calcutta, Madras, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Pune, Kanpur and Lucknow. In terms of  the aforesaid license agreement the plaintiff, who was granted  license was  required  to provide financial bank guarantees to  defendant  No.1  to secure  the outstanding license fee payment due from the plaintiff  to  defendant  No.1.  Relevant clause of the agreement for  furnishing  financial bank guarantee is extracted below:-\n<\/p>\n
      18(d)(ii): <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      Since  this  account will not have adequate  funds  initially,  a      financial  bank guarantee is required till this  account  becomes sufficiently healthy and continues to be so. For the period  upto the first two years after commissioning\/provision of the service, the  Authority may specify 'nil' amount to the bank where  escrow account  is  established, as financial bank  guarantee  would  be available  for  the initial period. Alongwith the  acceptance  of letter  of  intent, 10% of the first year's paging levy  will  be required in the form of a bank draft and 90% of the first  year's paging  levy  will be required in the form of  a  financial  bank \n     guarantee in the format given in Annexure-1, valid for one  year.  Subsequent continuance of this financial guarantee will be decided  by the Authority based on the amount which becomes  available in  the account for purposes of operation of the  escrow  account \n     mentioned above keeping in view the amount due to DOT.\"  \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
      In  pursuance of the aforesaid requirement to be complied with by  the plaintiff  the defendant No.2, Sakura Bank Limited gave  various  financial bank  guarantees in favour of defendant No.1, the details of which are  set out  in  paragraph 5(d) of the plaint. The said financial  bank  guarantees furnished  by defendant No.2 on behalf of the plaintiff to  defendant  No.1 were for a total sum of Rs.11,78,30,000\/- all dated 5.11.1997 and the  same were valid upto 30.11.1998 which have also been directed to be extended for another  two months in view of pendency of the present suit in this  court. The  said bank guarantees stipulated that the said bank at the  request  of the  licensee  irrevocably and unconditionally guarantee to  the  defendant No.1 that the licensee would pay all the dues including but not limited  to the  license  fee  the excess charges etc. to the authority.  It  was  also stipulated  that the bank undertakes to pay to the authority the  aforesaid amount against any loss or damag caused to or suffered or would be caused to or suffered by the authority by reason of any failure of the licensee to pay  above  mentioned dues, charges or any part thereof within  the  period stipulated  in  the license. The bank further undertook to pay  as  primary obliger  and as surety to pay said amount to the authority  immediately  on demand  and  without any demur stating that the amount claimed  is  due  by failure  of the licensee to pay any fees or charges or any part thereof  in terms of the said license. It was declared in the said bank guarantees that the decision of the authority as to whether licensee has failed to pay  the said  license fees or any other fees or charge or any part thereby  payable under  the  said license as to the amount payable to the authority  by  the bank hereunder would be final and binding on the bank.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The defendant No.1 by its letter dated 11.9.1998 informed the  defendant  No.2  that  the licensee, the plaintiff had failed  to  discharge  the contractual  obligation by not paying the periodical license fee which  had accumulated to Rs. 26,03,01,500\/- and on that account put a formal claim of the  Department of Telecommunication on the aforesaid sum against the  subject guarantees which the bank was liable to pay as per the terms contained therein.  The defendant No.1 called upon the defendant No.2 to release  the aforesaid payment of the amount of Rs. 11,78,30,000\/- in the form of Demand Draft\/  Banker’s Cheque, which the bank was liable to release  without  any demur  and  taking the decision of defendant No.1 as final and  binding  on them.\n<\/p>\n
 6.   I  am informed that in pursuance of the aforesaid request and  invocation of the financial bank guarantees by defendant No.1 the defendant  No.2 took  necessary steps to release the payment but before the same  could  be remitted by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff and accordingly, the said amount has so far not been  released  by  defendant No. 2. However, during the  pendency  of  the present suit in this court the plaintiff offered to pay Rs.1 crore  towards license fee for the third year without prejudice to the rights and  conten-tions of the parties in the present suit and accordingly, the plaintiff was permitted to do so and the said amount of Rs.1 Crore has since been paid to the defendant No.1.\n<\/p>\n
 7.   Mr. Chandiok, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that  the invocation  of the bank guarantee by defendant No.1 is not in terms of  the bank  guarantees and that the defendant No.1 has acted in violation of  the terms of the license agreement entered into between the parties. He further submitted  that the plaintiff as also numerous other radio paging  offerers of  the  country have filed representations before the defendant  No.1  and without  taking any decision the defendant No.1 in clear violation  of  the express  terms of the financial bank guarantees issued the impugned  letter dated 11.9.1998 seeking enforcement of financial bank guarantees and there-by putting the plaintiff to undue hardship. It is also stated in the application filed by the plaintiff seeking for injunction that invocation of the said  bank guarantees by defendant No.1 has caused prejudice to the  plaintiff and the said action, if allowed to be enforced would amount to  unjust enrichment.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr. Chandiok also submitted that the invocation of the bank guarantees is  fraudulent and therefore, in terms of various decisions of the  Supreme Court  such invocation by the defendant No.1 is required to be  restrained. In  order  to substantiate his submission that the invocation of  the  bank guarantee by defendant No.1 was fraudulent Mr. Chandiok relied particularly on  3 factors. According to him the financial bank guarantees furnished  by the  defendant No.1 at the request of the plaintiff to the  defendant  No.1 were all expiring on 30.8.1998 but the defendant No.1 wrote a letter to the plaintiff  calling upon it to extend the bank guarantees  contending  inter alia  that the post-tender\/license concessions sought for by the  plaintiff some  of which are subjudice and therefore, the bank guarantees are  to  be revalidated.  It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid  representation made  by defendant No.1 the bank guarantees were extended by  letter  dated 24.8.1998  and immediately after uch extension of the bank  guarantees  at the representation of defendant No.1 the same were sought to be invoked  by the letter dated 11.9.1998 and thus the entire action of defendant No.1  is fraudulent.  In support of his contention the learned counsel  also  relied upon the provisions of Section 17 of the Contract Act. It was also  submitted that the amount claimed by defendant No.1 in the impugned letter is Rs. 26  Crores  whereas in other communication claim of the plaintiff  was  restricted only to Rs. 21 crore and therefore, the invocation is stated to be fraudulent.  The third feature which was indicated by the  learned  counsel for the plaintiff to bring home his point is the fact that the  concessions sought for by the plaintiff are still under consideration of the  defendant No.1 in respect of which meetings have been taking place between the plaintiff  and  the defendant, which fact is also admitted and accepted  by  the defedant  in paragraph 15 of the statement wherein it is stated  that  the representatives of the association have been having meetings and therefore, when the matter is still under consideration of defendant No.1 and particularly  when  the Prime Minister of India has issued a  statement  that  the Government  is  considering to bring in some new policies  with  regard  to paging licenses, invocation of the bank guarantees at that stage is tainted with  fraudulent motives. In support of his submission the learned  counsel relied upon the decisions of this court in Ansal Properties and  Industries Pvt.  Ltd. Vs. Engineering Projects India Ltd., 1998(1) Delhi  Lawyer  339; M\/s.  Har  Pershad  & Company Ltd. Vs. Sudershan Steel  Mills  and  others,  and the decision of the Supreme  Court  in Hindustan  Steel Works Constructions Ltd. Vs. Tarapore & Co.  and  another, .\n<\/p>\n
 8.   Mr.  Tikku appearing for defendant No.1, on the other  hand  submitted that the defendant No.1 has not approached this court with clean hands  and on  that count alone the relief sought for by the plaintiff is required  to be  rejected  as grant of injunction is an equitable relief.  He  submitted that  the plaintiff in the plaint has categorically stated that  there  are only three disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 which  consist of provision of free resources at the point of interconnects, reduction  of license fee payable and deferment of the license fee payable for the  third year. According to the counsel in respect of the dispute providing for free resources  at the point of interconnects and reduction of license  fee  the plaintiff  has already preferred a petition before the  Telecom  Regulatory Authority  of India which was registered as Petition No. 17\/1998, which  is pending disposal before the said authority. He submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed the aforesaid fac in the present suit, besides  suppressing the fact that the plaintiff also preferred the suit in this court which was registered  as  Suit No. 2320\/1996 wherein also the  plaintiff  sought  for restraining the defendants from encashment of bank guarantees for the  same amount of Rs.11,78,30,000\/- and the said injunction was not granted by this court.  Therefore, the plaintiff having not come to this court  with  clean hands the application is liable to be dismissed. Counsel further  submitted that  the  total amount due from the plaintiff to  defendant  No.1  towards license  fee and other charges on the date of filing of the suit  was  more than Rs. 26 Crore. He further submitted that the plaintiff has been running the service and carrying on the business collecting fee from the  customers whereas  he  has failed to deposit the license fee, although  he  is  being financially benefited through the collection of charges from the customers. He  also submitted that the financial bank guarantees provided at  the request  of  the plaintiff in terms of the agreement were  unconditional  and irrevocable  and the said bank guarantees were invoked in  accordance  with the terms of the agreement and therefore, the same should be allowed to  be invoked and the amount remitted to the defendant No.1.\n<\/p>\n
 9.   In  the light of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel  for the  parties, I have considered the records of the case and  the  decisions relied upon by the counsel appearing for the parties and proceed to  record my findings thereon.\n<\/p>\n
 10.  In paragraph 5(d) of the plaint the plaintiff has set out the particulars  of  the financial bank guarantees. A perusal of the records  of  Suit No.2320\/1996 indicates that the plaintiff in the said suit also sought  for temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from invoking the  bank guarantees,  particulars of which have been set out in paragraph 14 of  the plaint of the said suit. The said bank guarantees relate to the same cities as  that  of the financial bank guarantees relating to  the  present  suit. Except for mentioning in the plaint that the plaintiff also approached this court  seeking relief by way of reduction of license fee which is  pending, no particulars of the said suit were given nor any mention was made in  the present case that an injunction order was sought for in respect of the bank guarantees  of  same amount in the said suit. According  to  the  plaintiff there  are three disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No.1  in  respect  of  payment of license fee whch pertain to provision  of  free  resources,  deferment of payment of license fee and reduction of license  fee and the aforesaid issues as admitted by the plaintiff in paragraph 5(o) are pending  for  consideration before the Telecom  Regulatory  Authority.  The plaintiff  also did not mention the case No. before the court.  However,  a copy  of the petition filed by the plaintiff before the said authority  has been  put  on  record by the counsel appearing for defendant  No.1  for  my perusal.  A perusal of the said petition indicates that all  the  aforesaid disputes  sought to be raised by the plaintiff are pending disposal  before the  Telecom Regulatory Authority and therefore, subjudice  before  another authority.  The aforesaid position indicates that the plaintiff  failed  to disclose all material facts and also failed to come to this court with  all informations  relevant  to  the purpose of adjudication  and  deciding  the present suit and the same have been unfolded only subsequent to the  filing of the suit. The conduct of the plaintiff in approaching and coming to this court  cannot  be  said to be with clean hands as full  disclosure  of  all materials were not done by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
 11.  The  law relating to invocation of the bank guarantees is by now  well settled. Numerous decisions have been rendered by the Supreme Court  laying down  and  reiterating the principles which the court is to  apply  when  a request is made for grant of an injunction restraining encashment of a bank guarantee. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Vs. Singh Consultants, ; G.E.T. Services Company Inc. Vs. M\/s. Punj Sons (P) Ltd., ; Svenska Handelsbanken Vs. M\/s. Indian Charge Chrome, ;  M\/s.  Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State  Electricity  Board, ; Hindustan Steel Workers Vs. G.S. Atwal & Co., ;  Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. Tarapore & Co.,  1996  SC 2268;  U.P. State Sugar Corporation Vs. Sumac International,  ;  Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd. Vs. Tehri Hydro Development  Corporation Ltd., .\n<\/p>\n
 12.  In  U.P. State Sugar Corporation (supra) in paragraph 16  the  Supreme
\nCourt stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Clearly,  therefore,  the existence of any dispute  between  the      parties to the contract is not a ground for issuing an injunction to  restrain the enforcement of bank guarantees. There must be  a fraud in connection with the bank guarantee. In the present  case we fail to see any such fraud. The High Court seems to have  come to  the  conclusion that the termination of the contract  by  the  appellant  and  his  claim that time was of the  essence  of  the contract, are not based on the terms of the contract and,  therefore,  there is a fraud in the invocation of the bank  guarantee. This  is  an  erroneous view. The disputes  between  the  parties relating  to the termination of the contract cannot make  invoca-tion  of the bank guarantees fraudulent. The High Court has  also referred  to  the conduct of the appellant in invoking  the  bank guarantees  on an earlier occasion on 12.4.1992 and  subsequently withdrawing such invocation. The court has used this circumstance in  aid of its view that the time was not of the essence  of  thecontract.  We fail to see how an earlier invocation of  the  bank guarantees and subsequent withdrawal of this invocation make  the bank  guarantees  or their invocation tainted with fraud  in  any manner. Under the terms of the contract it is stipulated that the respondent  is  required to give  unconditional  bank  guarantees against advance payments as also a similar bank guarantee for due delivery of the contracted plant within the stipulated period. In the absence of any fraud the appellant is entitled to realise the  bank guarantees.”\n<\/p>\n
      In the said decision the principles laid down by the Supreme Court  in respect  of the principles of invocation of bank guarantee have  also  been reiterated when the court has said that the courts should be slow in granting  injunction restraining realisation of a bank guarantee which could  be done only in case of fulfillment of either of the two exceptions. The  first exception as stated therein is fraud in connection with such a bank guarantee  which would vitiate the very foundation of such a bank  guarantee  and therefore, if there be such a fraud of which the beneficiary seeks to  take advantage  he could be restrained from doing so. The second  exception  relates to cases where allowing the encashment of un-conditional bank guarantee  would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the  parties concerned.  In Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. Prem  Heavy  Engineering Works  (P)  Ltd. and another, 1997(2) Arb. LR 350, it was  reiterated  that when  in the course of commercial dealin an unconditional bank  guarantee is  given or accepted, the beneficiary is entitled to realise such  a  bank guarantee  in  terms thereof irrespective of any pending disputes.  In  the said  decision  the court reiterated the general principle  in  respect  of invocation of the bank guarantee by quoting a passage from the decision  of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Corporation’s case (supra) which summarised the general principle as follows:-        “The law relating to invocation of such bank guarantees is by now      well settled. When in the course of commercial dealings an unconditional bank guarantee is given or accepted, the beneficiary  is      entitled to realize such a bank guarantee in terms thereof  irrespective of any pending disputes. The bank giving such a  guarantee  is bound to honour, it as per its terms irrespective of  any      dispute raised by its customer. The very purpose of giving such a      bank  guarantee would otherwise be defeated. The  courts  should,      therefoe, be slow in granting an injunction to retain the realisation of such a bank guarantee. The courts have carved out  only  two exceptions. A fraud in connection with such a bank  guarantee would vitiate the very foundation of such a bank guarantee. Hence if  there is such a fraud of which the beneficiary seeks to  take the  advantage,  he can be restrained from doing so.  The  second exception  relates  to case where allowing the encashment  of  an unconditional  bank guarantee would result in irretrievable  harm or injustice to one of the parties concerned. Since in most cases payment  of  money under such a bank  guarantee  would  adversely affect  the  bank  and its customer at whose  instance  the  bank guarantee is given, the harm or injustice contemplated under this head  must be of such an exceptional and irretrievable nature  aswould override the terms of the guarantee and the adverse  effect of such an injunction on commercial dealings in the country.”\n<\/p>\n
 13.  Mr. Chandiok, appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the aforesaid fraud  as referred to in the decisions of the Supreme Court could  also  be when  a demand by the beneficiary under the bank guarantee is made in  case of  any fraud committed by the beneficiary while executing  the  underlying contract  but  it might become so because of subsequent events  or  circum-stances and in that event also the demand would become fraudulent and  that has  been  so accepted by the Supreme Court in the  decision  of  Hindustan Steel  Works  Construction Ltd. (supra). The aforesaid  contention  of  the learned counsel for the plaintiff is legally a correct proposition for  the Supreme  Court has said that fraud which is recognised as an  exception  is the  fraud by one of the parties to the underlying contract and  which  has the  effect  of vitiating the entire underlying transaction  and  that  the demand  by a beneficiary under the bank guarantee might  become  fraudulent not  because of any fraud committd by the beneficiary while executing  the underlying contract but it might become so because of the subsequent events or  circumstances. The Supreme Court further stated that the  courts  could restrain  a  person making such a fraudulent demand from enforcing  a  bank guarantee.  Counsel also submitted that the financial bank guarantees  have not been invoked by the defendant No.1 in terms of the agreement and therefore,  also the aforesaid demand is invalid and illegal. According  to  the learned counsel the invocation of the bank guarantee by the defendant  No.1 would  show  that by invocation of the said bank guarantees  the  defendant No.1 was required to ascertain the dues since the term of the bank  guarantee  is that the bank is required to pay the fees, dues or charges  or  any part  thereof. The counsel submitted that without determining the dues  the defendant  No.1  was  incapable of invoking the bank  guarantee.  The  said submission is without any merit and baseless, for in my considered opinion the  defendant  No.1 has already stated in its invocation letter  that  Rs. 26,03,01,500\/-  is due from the plaintiff towards license fee. The  submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that without determination of the  dues  by a competent authority or by an arbitrator no such  demand  is payable, cannot be accepted and in support I may only refer to the observation  made  by the Supreme Court in paragraph 23 in the case  of  Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. (supra). In the said case also it was pleaded that  there  is a serious dispute on the question as to who  had  committed breach of the contract and in that context the Supreme Court observed  that the special circumstances and\/or special equities which had been pleaded in the case are that there is a serious dispute on the question as to who  had committed  breach  of  the contract, the contractor  had  a  counter  claim against  the defendant, the disputes between the parties had been  referred to  an arbitrator and that no amount is e and payable by  the  contractor till  the  arbitrator  declares the award. The Supreme Court  in  the  said context  held that the said factors are not sufficient to make the case  an exceptional case justifying interference by restraining the appellant  from enforcing the bank guarantees. The bank guarantees furnished by the  plaintiff in the present case on the face of it are un-conditional. The  invocation  of the said bank guarantees by the defendant, in my considered  opinion,  was issued in terms of the bank guarantees and the submission of  the plaintiff in that regard is without merit.\n<\/p>\n
 14.  The other aspect argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff  that
\nremains  to be answered is whether the invocation of the bank guarantee  by the defendant No.1 is in any manner fraudulent. The plaintiff in the plaint has  only  stated that the action of defendant No.1 in  invoking  the  bank guarantee  is fraudulent. The reason given for such contention at the  time of  argument  are that the representations of the  plaintiff  were  pending before  the defendant No.1 for reduction of license, that dues dues  sought to  be  claimed by the defendant against the plaintiff  towards  arrear  of license  fee  is different inasmuch as at one place they have  claimed  for Rs.26  Crores whereas in another they have claimed Rs. 21 Crores  and  that the  defendant  proceeded to invoke the bank guarantees  immediately  after asking  for renewal of the bank guarantees. According to the  counsel,  all these  factors lead to one conclusion, namely – that the invocation of  the bank guarantees is fraudulent. In the plaint the plaintiff has not  pleaded any fraud of the beneficiary at the ime of furnishing the bank guarantees. Admittedly  dues  are payable by the plaintiff to  defendant  No.1  towards license fee which are in arrears. It is also an admitted position that  the plaintiff  has been collecting the fee from the customers on the  basis  of the license provided by defendant No.1. Under the license the plaintiff  is required  to  and  bound to pay the license fee. It is  true  that  certain representations  of the plaintiff are pending with the defendant No.1,  but the subject matter of the said representations are also the subject  matter before the Telecom Regulatory Authority and therefore, subjudice. Since the validity  of the bank guarantees were to expire the defendant  No.1  called upon the plaintiff to renew the same as furnishing of such bank  guarantees is  a pre-requisite under the license. Raising of the dispute and  pendency thereof  with regard to grant of concession to the license  fee,  providing for free resources at the point of interconnection, quantum of license  fe relate  to  the main contract entered into between the  plaintiff  and  the defendant  and would be considered at the appropriate stage. But such  disputes although might exist do not and cannot make the demand and invocation a fraudulent action. Therefore, none of the aforesaid factors as stated  by the learned counsel for the plaintiff would make the action of the  defendant invoking the bank guarantees a fraudulent one. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove and establish that the action of the defendant No.1 in invoking  the  bank  guarantees is in any manner fraudulent.  Thus,  in  my considered opinion the plaintiff has failed to make out any case for  grant of  an injunction as sought for in the present application restraining  the invocation of the bank guarantees and remittance of the amount by defendant No.2  to  defendant No.1. However, while invoking the bank  guarantee,  and asking for remittance of the amount of Rs. 1 Crore deposited by the  plaintiff  with the defendant during pendency o the present suit in this  court shall be deducted. The application fails and is accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Dss Mobile Communications … vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1999 (48) DRJ 1 Author: D M Sharma Bench: D M Sharma ORDER DR. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. By this order I propose to dispose of I.A. 7956\/1998 arising out of Suit No.1952\/1998 filed by the […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-192795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDss Mobile Communications ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998 - 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\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dss Mobile Communications ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-07T04:20:10+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\\\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dss Mobile Communications … vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-07T04:20:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998\"},\"wordCount\":4227,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998\",\"name\":\"Dss Mobile Communications ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-07T04:20:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dss Mobile Communications … vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Dss Mobile Communications ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998 - 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\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dss Mobile Communications ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-07T04:20:10+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\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dss Mobile Communications … vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998","datePublished":"1998-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-07T04:20:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998"},"wordCount":4227,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998","name":"Dss Mobile Communications ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-07T04:20:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dss-mobile-communications-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-16-december-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dss Mobile Communications … vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 December, 1998"}]},{"@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\/192795","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=192795"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192795\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}