{"id":98050,"date":"2002-05-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-05-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002"},"modified":"2017-12-05T11:49:36","modified_gmt":"2017-12-05T06:19:36","slug":"koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002","title":{"rendered":"Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 98 (2002) DLT 665<\/div>\n
Author: D Jain<\/div>\n
Bench: D Jain<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
D.K. Jain, J. <\/p>\n
 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
\nto see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n
 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes By this petition under Section 9 of the
\nArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the
\nAct), the petitioner, carrying on business of
\ncellular-mobile telephone services, seeks to restraint
\nthe Department of Telecommunications (for short the
\nDoT) from terminating the public switched telephone
\nnetwork (PSTN), connecting license for UP(East) circle,
\nallotted to them on 12 December 1995, pending
\narbitration on the disputes\/difference, which are
\nstated to have arisen between them. During the course
\nof hearing learned counsel for the petitioner had
\nstated that the petitioner was not pressing for the
\nsecond relief with regard to UP(West) circle, prayed
\nfor in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
 2. The material facts, leading to the filing of
\nthis petition, are:\n<\/p>\n
  The DoT issued tender dated 29 December 1994
\nfor cellular mobile telephone services in different
\nregions in India, divided into telecom circles. The
\nbids submitted by the petitioner for the UP(West),
\nUP(East), Bihar and Orissa circles were accepted.
\nlicense agreements in respect of UP(West), UP(East) and
\nOrissa circles were signed on 12 December 1995 and the
\nsame was the effective date of the licenses. However,
\nin the case of Bihar, the agreement was signed on 22
\nOctober 1996 but the effective date in this case was
\nalso 12 December 1995, which was subsequently changed
\nto 23 August 1996. The period for payment of license
\nfee and time available for delivery of stipulated
\ncoverage was to start from the effective date. The
\npetitioner submitted the required financial bank
\nguarantees to the DoT in respect of each of the
\ncircles.\n<\/p>\n
 3. According to the petitioner the targeted
\ncoverage could not be achieved within the expected
\nperiod of 12 months from the effective date and in fact
\nthe implementation of the project itself was
\nconsiderably delayed on account of procedural delays at
\nvarious stages, including delays at the government
\nlevel in according sanctions, resulting in default by
\nthe petitioner in making payment of the license fees
\nfor all the four circles. The petitioner claims to
\nhave made various representations, highlighting its
\nproblems and reasons for defaults in payment of license
\nfee. However, on account of the said defaults,
\npetitioner’s licenses for UP(West), Bihar and Orissa
\nwere terminated from 22 May 1999, which action of the
\nDoT was challenged by the petitioner in this Court by
\nfiling a petition under Section 9 of the Act (OMP
\n157\/99).\n<\/p>\n
 4. Since almost all the licensees had defaulted
\nin making payment of the license fees for one reason or
\nthe other, the Government of India came out with a new
\nNational Telecom Policy, 1999, effective from 1 April
\n1999. Under the new scheme the cellular operators were
\nrequired to pay one time entry fee and then a license
\nfee as a percentage share of gross revenue under the
\nlicense. The entry fee chargeable was to be the
\nlicense fee dues payable for existing licensees up to 31
\nJuly 1999 calculated up to this date duly adjusted
\nconsequent upon notional extension of effective date.
\nPursuant to the said new policy, the Government of
\nIndia, vide their letter dated 22 July 1999, offered
\nmigration package to all the existing licensees under
\nwhich a licensee could opt for migration from National
\nTelecom Policy of 1994 to the new National Telecom
\nPolicy of 1999 by fulfillling the terms and conditions
\ncontained in the migration package.\n<\/p>\n
 5. The petitioner responded to the said offer
\nvide its letter dated 26 July 1999, by lodging protest
\nagainst the DoT’s partisan action in respect of the
\neffective date. They expressed their inability to make
\ncommitment within the specified item and requested for
\noffer being kept open till clarification of the points
\nraised int heir letter.\n<\/p>\n
 6. However, presumably, Realizing that it may
\nbe left alone in the old package, vide its letter dated
\n28 July 1999, pertaining to UP(East), telecom circle,
\nthough ostensibly conveying its acceptance for
\nmigration to the new package, the petitioner, in
\ncontinuation of the aforenoted reply dated 26 July
\n1999, conveyed their conditional acceptance to which
\nthere was no response from the side of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
 7. Perhaps, left with no choice, the petitioner
\nvide its letter dated 30 November 1999 conveyed its
\nunconditional acceptance to the migration package for
\nthe existing license for UP(East) circle, on the terms
\nand conditions conveyed to it by the DoT vide their
\naforementioned letter dated 22 July 1999. The DoT,
\nvide their letter dated 17 April 2000, permitted the
\npetitioner to migrate to the new package in respect of
\nall the four circles. Since some of the clauses in the
\nsaid letter have material bearing on the issue
\ninvolved, it would be necessary to reproduce the same:\n<\/p>\n
“This has reference to your letter dated 30.11.1999
\naddressed to the Secretary, Department of
\nTelecommunications conveying your belated
\nunconditional acceptance of the offer of migration
\npackage extended to you by Licensing Authority
\nvide letter No. 842-153\/99VAS(Vo.V) dated 22.7.1999
\nand other correspondence as well as representations
\nin person in respect of Cellular Service license
\nfor UP-East Telecom Circle.\n<\/p>\n
 In consideration of your above mentioned
\nunconditional acceptance, and as a special case,
\nmigration to New Telecom Policy-1999 regime with
\neffect from 1.12.1999 is hereby offered to you
\nsubject to fulfillment of the following conditions
\nin entirety in the given time frames:\n<\/p>\n
 (i) The cut off date for change over to NTP-99
\nregime will be 1.12.1999.\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) The licensee will be required to pay one time
\nentry fee and license Fee as a percentage share of
\ngross revenue under the license. The Entry Fee
\nchargeable will be the license fee dues payable by
\nexisting licensee up to 30.11.1999, calculated up to
\nthis date duly adjusted consequent upon notional
\nextension of effective date as para (vi) below, as
\nper the Conditions of existing license.\n<\/p>\n
 (iii) The license fee as a percentage of gross
\nrevenue under the license shall be payable w.e.f.
\n1.12.1999. xxxxx.\n<\/p>\n
 (iv) You are requested to pay the following amounts
\nwithin 15 days of receipt of this letter.\n<\/p>\n
 (a) An amount of 40% or more of the license fee
\ndues, payable for the period up to, and outstanding
\nas on 30.11.1999, calculated as per para (vi)
\nbelow.\n<\/p>\n
 (b) Interest, on amount of license fee payable for
\nthe period up to 30.11.1999, as per the existing
\nlicense agreement, calculated up to 31.3.2000 in
\nfull and  <\/p>\n
 (c) Liquidated damage charges of Rs. 100 lakhs (as
\ndemanded earlier vide letter
\nNo. 842-62(B)\/95VAS\/PT. dated 7.8.1998) along with
\ninterest up to the date of payment in full.\n<\/p>\n
 The amounts computed in respect of (a) and (b) are
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————————-
\nService  license fee  40% of   Intt.\n<\/p>\n
Area  dues up to        license   calculated
\n   30.11.99 as  fee as in   up to 31.3.00
\n  per para (a)  col. (2)  as per para
\n  above      (b) above\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————————-
\n1  2   3   4\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————————
\nUP East  Rs.1,22, 88,72,694 Rs.49,15,49, 0785 Rs.60,60,78,94\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
 (v) The balance due of license fee for the period
\nup to 30.11.1999 will have to be paid within 45 days
\nfrom the date of receipt of this offer letter,
\nalong with interest calculated up to the actual date
\nof payment in full.\n<\/p>\n
 (vi) xxxxx  <\/p>\n
 (vii) xxxxx  <\/p>\n
 (viii) Migration to the NTP-99 regime on the
\nconditions mentioned in this letter will be
\npermitted on the premise that the conditions are
\naccepted as a package in its entirety and
\nsimultaneously all legal proceedings in Courts,
\nTribunals, Authority or in Arbitration instituted
\nby the licensee including its subscribers and COAI
\n(Cellular parroters Association of India) against
\nDoT or UOI shall be withdrawn immediately and a
\ncopy of the application filed and Court’s order
\nthereon be provided to this office within 15 days
\nfrom date of receipt of letter. Further any
\ndispute with regard to the license agreement for
\nthe period up to the actual date of fulfillment of
\nall the terms and conditions of this package, shall
\nnot be raised at any future date. The acceptance
\nof this package will be deemed as a full and final
\nsettlement of all existing disputes whatsoever
\nirrespective of whether they are related with the
\npresent package or not.\n<\/p>\n
 (ix) xxxxx    <\/p>\n
 (x) xxxxx   <\/p>\n
 (xi) If either of the cellular operators in a given
\nService Area does not accept the package, both the
\noperators will continue in the existing licensing
\narrangement until the validity of the present
\nlicenses.\n<\/p>\n
 (xii) xxxxx  <\/p>\n
 (xiii) xxxxx  <\/p>\n
 (xiv) xxxxx  <\/p>\n
 (xv) xxxxx <\/p>\n
 3. xxxxx  <\/p>\n
 4. An undertaking in the form of an affidavit in
\nthe enclosed proforma by an authorised signatory of
\nthe company of acceptance of the above terms and
\nconditions along with an authority in favor of
\nauthorised signatory to convey the acceptance,
\nshould reach the undersigned immediately and in any
\ncase not later than 24.4.2000 (7 days from date of
\nletter). In case no response is received within
\nthe stipulated period, it will be presumed that you
\nare not interested in migration to the new regime
\nand steps as envisaged in the said License
\nAgreement shall be taken under the terms and
\nconditions of the said license.\n<\/p>\n
 6. In case the conditions as above are not fully
\ncomplied within the stipulated time frame, action
\nshall be taken as per the advance notice of
\ntermination of license agreement issued earlier
\nvide letter dated 15.4.1999, without any further
\nnotice to you.”\n<\/p>\n
 8. The petitioner accepted the said offer vide its
\nletter dated 25 April 2000, by writing thus:\n<\/p>\n
  “We thank you for your letter
\nNo. 842-320\/2000VAS(Vol. II) dated April 17,
\n2000 which was received by us today.\n<\/p>\n
 As desired by you, we enclosing an
\nundertaking in the form of an Affidavit
\nregarding the acceptance of terms and
\nconditions of the restoration of our
\nlicenses and Migration to new regime. The
\nnecessary authority from the company in my
\nfavor to furnish this Undertaking is also
\nenclosed.”\n<\/p>\n
 9. The requisite affidavit stating that the
\ncompany had unequivocally and unconditionally accepted
\nthe modified terms and conditions as a package, as
\ncontained in DoT’s letter dated 17 April 2000, was also
\nenclosed with the letter. Later, vide its letter dated
\n4 May 2000, while furnishing information with regard to
\nwithdrawal of pending legal proceedings, which included
\nOMP 157\/99, in terms of Clause 2(viii) of the agreement,
\nthe petitioner reassured the DoT that it would be
\nperforming all obligations required to be completed by
\nit as per the terms of aforesaid letter dated 17
\nApril 2000.\n<\/p>\n
 10. It appears that thereafter the petitioner sent
\nthree cheques in the sums of Rs. 124.82 lakhs, Rs. 115.02
\nlakhs and Rs. 40.17 lakhs towards provisional license
\nfees respectively for quarters April 2000-June 2000,
\nJanuary 2000-March, 2000 and for the month of December
\n1999 under three separate covering letters, all dated 31
\nJuly 2000. But the same were returned un-encashed by
\nthe DoT. The petitioner was informed vide DoT’s letter
\ndated 9 August 2000 that all the four packages stand
\nautomatically withdrawn and cancelled on account of
\npetitioner’s failure to comply with the conditions of
\nthe packages by the due date i.e. 24 July 2000, despite
\nits un-conditional and un-equivocal undertaking on
\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n
 11. Again on 8 September 2000, the petitioner sent
\ntwo cheques in the total sum of Rs. 100 Crores as upfront
\npayment with a request to the DoT to condone the delay
\nin payment of balance amount. The said amount was
\naccepted and adjusted by the DoT as requested by the
\npetitioner vide their letter dated 26 September 2000,
\nbut without prejudice. It appears that thereafter some
\ncorrespondence ensued between both the parties and,
\nperhaps, for the first time, vide its letter dated 1
\nFebruary 2001, the petitioner raked up the issues with
\nregard to the uniform cut off date, license fee for the
\nterminated period on license etc. By their letter dated
\n23 February 2001, the DoT called upon the petition to
\nclear all its dues within thirty days of the issue of
\nthe letter failing which action for recovery was
\nthreatened. Changing its stand with regard to the
\nadjustment of Rs. 100 Crores paid on 8 September 2000,
\nvide its letter dated 3 September 2001, the petitioner
\nseparated the license for UP(East), the circle with
\nwhich we are concerned in the present petition, and
\ninformed the DoT that if the said entire amount is
\nadjusted against the dues of this circle, nothing would
\nbe due to be paid to them. Interstignly, by adopting
\n31 July 1999 as the cut off date on its own accord the
\npetitioner asked for adjustment of 115.64 Crores against
\nits revenue share from 1 August 1999 to 30 June 2001.
\nBy the impugned letter dated 19 September 2001, the DoT
\nfinally asked the petitioner to clear all its
\noutstanding udes. Expecting termination of license for
\nthe solitary live UP(East) circle, the petitioner filed
\nthe present petition.\n<\/p>\n
 12. While issuing notice, by order dated 24
\nSeptember 2001, the respondent DoT was restrained from
\nterminating the license agreement dated 12 December
\n1995, and PSTN connectivity in relation to UP(East)
\ncircle on petitioner’s depositing a sum of Rs. 3 Crores
\nwithin three weeks from that date.\n<\/p>\n
 13. In the affidavit filed in opposition, the
\npetition is opposed on the preliminary objection that
\nthe petitioner having accepted the migration package
\nun-conditionally and un-equivocally, it was estopped
\nfrom raising the disputes again by means of this
\npetition, which according to the specific condition of
\nthe migration package were to stand settled and no such
\ndispute, prior to the cut off date of migration could be
\nraised. On merits, while refuting petitioner’s
\nallegation on delay on the part of the Government of
\nIndia in granting various sanctions or that the
\npetitioner was being discriminated against, it is stated
\nthat more then 400 Crores is due from the petitioner
\ntowards license fee, liquidated damages and interest
\ncalculated against all four licenses. Insofar as
\nlicense for UP(East) is concerned, after adjustment of
\nthe amounts paid, a sum of Rs. 273.4288656 plus revenue
\nsharing from 1 December 1999 onwards is stated to be due
\nfrom the petitioner under the aforementioned heads under
\nthe new migration package. In the additional affidavit
\nfiled on behalf of the DoT, it is also pointed out that
\nthe other cellular operators in UP(East) namely,
\nM\/s. Aricell Digilink has accepted the migration package
\nwith the cut off date as 1 August 1999.\n<\/p>\n
 14. I have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior
\ncounsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Salve, learned
\nSolicitor General of India on behalf of the DoT at
\nconsiderable length.\n<\/p>\n
 15. It is submitted by Mr. Kapil Sibal, leaned
\nsenior counsel, that: (i) on account of delays on the
\npart of various Government agencies in FIPB approval,
\nfrequency authorization as also frequency allogcation,
\nthe petitioner was justified in asking for extension in
\nthe effective date of license, particularly when similar
\nchanges were permitted to various other licensees; (ii)
\nsince the petitioner had opted for payment of license
\nfee under the 1994 package in four years, although it
\nhad the option to pay the same in 10 years, it would be
\nharsh, unreasonable and discriminatory to the petitioner
\nif the license fee payable under the new package is not
\nnormalised vis-a-vis the operators who had opted for 10
\nyears period, inasmuch as in the case of the petitioner
\nit would pay the entire license fee (payable in ten
\nyears) as entry fee for migration to the new policy
\nwhereas other operators who had opted to pay the license
\nfee over a period of 10 years would pay barely 30% of
\nthe license fee as entry fee; (iii) a large sum of
\nmoney is due and payable by the DoT to the petitioner as
\non the termination of three licenses for UP(West), Bihar
\nand Orissa on 22 May 1999, under Clause 15 of the
\nlicense agreement, the respondent is obliged to take
\nover the goods, services and assets of the petitioner
\nand pay compensation in terms of Clause 15.3 thereof, to
\nbe calculated on the basis of “current replacement value
\nof the asset, their future earning capacity and such
\nlike other relevant factors”, which works out to
\nRs. 984.02 Crores and (iv) since the petitioner has
\nchallenged the terms of the package itself as arbitrary
\nand un-constitutional, it cannot be non-suited on the
\nground that having accepted the migration package
\nunconditionally it is estopped from raising any dispute
\nrelating to the period prior to the new package. In
\nsupport of the proposition that the fundamental rights
\ncannot be waived, reliance is placed on the decisions of
\nthe Supreme Court in the cases of  Daryao and Ors. v.
\nThe State of UP and Ors.  and
\n Basheshar Nath v. CIT 1959 Supp. (1) 528. It is
\nasserted that though changes in effective dates have
\nbeen permitted by the DoT to some other operators, like
\nHexicon, Modicon, Sreenivas Cellcon, and the disputes
\npertaining to the period prior to the migration package
\nare still being entertained by the DoT (Bharati Mobile
\nLimited) but the same relief is being denied to the
\npetitioner, which is clearly discriminatory and
\narbitrary. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Sibal that
\nsince the parties are being referred to arbitration on
\nthe disputes raised by the petitioner, a prima facie
\ncase is made out in favor of the petitioner for grant
\nof interim relief and if the same is not granted at this
\nstage and petitioner’s operations in the only active
\ncircle UP (East) would come to a grinding halt and it
\nwill suffer irreparable injury, particularly when the
\nDoT has not so far taken any final decision with regard
\nto the take-over and payment of compensation in respect
\nof licenses terminated as far back as on 22 May 1999.\n<\/p>\n
16. The learned Solicitor General, on the other
\nhand, while reiterating the aforenoted stand of the
\nrespondent that having accepted the migration package
\nunconditionally, which the petitioner was not otherwise
\nbound to opt for and in fact it was offered to them as a
\nspecial case, it is not open to the petitioner to now
\nrake up certain points. It is pointed out that except
\nfor the initial signing amount none of the Installments
\nof license fee under the new package has been paid by
\nthe petitioner in time. It is also urged that if the
\npetitioner wants to operate under the new package, he
\ncannot be permitted to challenge some of the terms and
\nconditions of the same package. The petitioner is to
\neither accept the package as it is or to leave it.
\nInsofar as the claim of the petitioner with regard to
\nthe normalisation of the license fee is concerned, it is
\ncontended that there is no element of unequal treatment
\nto the petitioner because the other operator, who had
\ninitially opted for payment in ten years, was also asked
\nto pay on the basis of four years period due to
\npetitioner’s bid being ranked H. 1 in terms of tender
\nevaluation. It is asserted that at the time of
\nmigration the other operator was offered similar payment
\nschedule as was offered to the petitioner, which the
\nother party has accepted and made payment in terms
\nthereof. Regarding petitioner’s claim for compensation
\nunder Clause 15.3 of the license agreement, it is
\nsubmitted that the DoT is under no obligation to take
\nover the equipment or the goods of the petitioner. It
\nis urged that the stipulation in Clause 15 for take over
\nwas primarily meant for the benefit of the consumers, to
\nensure that services to them were not interrupted.\n<\/p>\n
 17. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the
\nrival submissions, I am of he view that strictly
\nspeaking, having accepted the new package in terms of
\nits letter dated 25 April 2000 unequivocally and
\nunconditionally, the petitioner was bound to comply with
\nall the terms and conditions of the package and make
\nfull payment of license fee in terms thereof. When the
\nparties enter into a contract, the terms of the contract
\nhave to be respected by all concerned. Therefore, at
\nthe first blush, it is difficult to say that the
\npetitioner has technically and in the traditional sense
\nmade out a straight prima facie case for grant of
\ninterim relief at this stage. But the prime question
\nthat arises for consideration is that when the parties
\nhave already been referred to arbitration for resolution
\nof the disputes pertaining to the same contract and the
\nwhole matter is at large before the arbitrator, whether
\nit would be proper to give some breathing time to the
\npetitioner to discharge its liabilities towards the DoT
\nunder the agreement by operating its services or decline
\ninterim relief, resulting in stoppage of its operations
\nand leaving the DoT to take recourse to proceedings for
\nrecovery of its dues after the award is given, which
\nincidentally is likely to take time.\n<\/p>\n
 18. The choice, though difficult, can be two fold;
\none, to reject the relief sought for and leave the
\nparties to the outcome in arbitration; the other, to
\ngrant graded relief to the petitioner by putting it on
\nterms to show its bona fides, by starting the process of
\npayment of dues right now.\n<\/p>\n
 19. Without going into the merits of the respective
\nstands of both the parties before me, lest it may cause
\nprejudice to either of the sides, and balancing the
\nequities between them and bearing in mind them the fact that
\nadmittedly on the one hand the petitioner has made huge
\ninvestments for providing the cellular services and
\ntermination of the license at this stage would cause
\nirreparable injury to it and at the same item a
\nsubstantial amount towards the license fee is due from
\nit to the DoT, I am of the view that, in the
\ncircumstances, pending arbitration, following interim
\narrangement would be just and fair to both the parties:\n<\/p>\n
(i) The petitioner shall pay to the DoT on or
\nbefore 15 July 2002 the full amount of
\nlicense fee payable up to 31 May 2002 in
\nterms of DoT’s letter dated 17 April
\n2000, excluding, however, the interest
\nand the amount payable towards liquidated
\ndamages, after adjusting a sum of
\nRs. 81.87 Crores, (Rs. 78.7 + 3 Crores in
\nterms of order dated 24 September 2001),
\nadmittedly paid by the petitioner;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) From 1 June 2002 onwards and till further
\norders by the Arbitrator, the petitioner
\nshall pay by the due date a license fee @
\n20% as against current rate of 10% of the
\ngross revenue, payable in terms of Clause\n<\/p>\n
(iii) of the said letter. The excess
\namount of 10% shall be adjusted by the
\nDoT against the pending demand towards
\ninterest and liquidate damage;\n<\/p>\n
 (iii) The interim stay order dated 24 September
\n2001 will continue till the award is made
\nby the arbitrator, however, subject to
\npayments in terms of (i) and (ii)
\nhereinabove by the specified date\/within
\ntime; and  <\/p>\n
 (iv) In case of default in any of the
\npayments, the interim order shall stand
\nvacated and the respondent-DoT will be
\nfree to enforce its rights under the
\ncontract.\n<\/p>\n
 The petition stands disposed of in the
\nabove terms, with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002 Equivalent citations: 98 (2002) DLT 665 Author: D Jain Bench: D Jain JUDGMENT D.K. Jain, J. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes […]<\/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-98050","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKoshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002 - 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\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-05T06:19:36+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-05T06:19:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3724,\"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\\\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002\",\"name\":\"Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-05T06:19:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002 - 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\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-05T06:19:36+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002","datePublished":"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-05T06:19:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002"},"wordCount":3724,"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\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002","name":"Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-05T06:19:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koshika-telecom-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Koshika Telecom Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 May, 2002"}]},{"@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\/98050","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=98050"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98050\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98050"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98050"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98050"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}