TDSAT: Penalty upto Rs. 2 Lakh can be imposed for willful failure to comply with orders of Appellate Tribunal

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed the present suit before Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal against the respondent on the ground that disconnection of supply of signals affected by the respondent MSO was without proper notice of 21 days contending the disconnection effected on 10.3.2019  to be illegal and unlawful. The court passed an interim order dated 18.3.2019, to resume the supply of signals however; the supply of signals was not resumed although reminders were sent through various emails and letters. It is the further case that even after the final order was passed by the Tribunal on 24.4.2019, the petitioner’s network was not activated and complaints made to the respondents had no effect. The petitioner received a disconnection notice sent by the respondent on24.6.2019 for non-payment of subscription fees for the period up to June 2019, on the basis of alleged subscription agreement dated 11.5.2019 to which the petitioner denied and stated that there was no resumption of supply of signals since 40.3.2015 nor there was any new agreement signed between the parties thereafter.

Arguments presented by the Parties

The respondent filed a reply to the suit on 25.9.2019 stating that the present application has been filed after an unexplained delay of about three and half months only to harass and malign the respondent. The respondent argued that Mr Shiv Kumar Verma as a representative of the petitioner approached the respondent through a letter dated 5.5.2019 which disclosed that Naveen Sharma, the proprietor of the Applicant was his partner and had been absconding due to filing of a criminal case and has requested for issuance of an alternate Login ID and Password and claimed that the respondent accepted the request of Shiv Kumar Verma treating the same as a request of the petitioner. According to the respondent, this trick has been played to deny the liability to pay for the dues mentioned in the subsequent disconnection notice. The respondent further prayed to dismiss the application with costs and to direct the petitioner to pay the subscription dues as given in the notice along with interest.

Decision of the Court

The respondent is directed to pay a penalty of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only)  to the registry under section 20 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRA) Act, 1997 Act for disobedience to comply with the degree of interim order passed by the Appellate Tribunal as the arguments presented by the respondent were vague and were not proved to be true.  In addition to this,  the respondent was directed to pay to the Applicant a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) by way of compensation for the wrongs done to him along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till date of ‘realization.

[googlepdf url=”http://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/original-judgement-by-the-court_watermark.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” width=”100%” height=”900″]


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -