LOOP TELECOM LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA
- Case No.TELECOM PETITION/472/2011 (LOOP TELECOM LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A licensee who has not filed its revenue returns for the relevant quarters, which are needed to compute AGR, has made out no prima facie basis for periodic review of the Financial Bank Guarantees furnished under the licence, and the licensor cannot be called upon to review them at that stage. Pending decision, the licensee may be directed to renew its Financial Bank Guarantee within a short period, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, where the licensor has indicated it will take a decision on the guarantee amount once the returns are filed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R
The Petitioner herein is a licensee; the licences having been granted by the Respondent herein in its favour in terms of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
2. In terms of the provisions of the licence agreement, the Petitioner has furnished Performance Bank Guarantees and Financial Bank Guarantees.
3. In this matter, we are concerned only with Financial Bank Guarantees furnished by the Petitioner. The Petitioner contends that it has furnished Financial Bank Guarantees to the extent of Rs.580 crores as detailed in paragraph 11 of the petition and renewed them till 09.01.2012.
4. On a query made by us as to whether the Petitioner has started its services so as to earn revenue, we are informed at the Bar that in 14 out of 21 circles, it has not started operations.
5. Mr. Srinivasan, learned senior counsel would contend that by 15.01.2012, the Petitioner would be able to furnish its return in respect of the circles wherein it has started its operation. If the Petitioner has not filed even the return of its revenue for the purpose of calculating AGR for two quarters, we are of the opinion that the Respondent at this stage cannot be asked to review the Financial Bank Guarantees. Therefore, we are prima-facie of the opinion that no basis has been made out for periodic review of the amount of Financial Bank Guarantee, as prayed for by the Petitioner.
6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, however, would contend that in the event the petitioner files its return on AGR basis by 15.01.2012, Respondent would be able to take appropriate decision, in regard to the amount of Bank Guarantee to be furnished by the Petitioner in terms of Clause 21.2 of the Licence Agreement within a period of three months.
7. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice will be sub-served if the Petiitoner is directed to renew the Bank Guarantee within a period of one week from date without prejudice to its rights and contentions, subject to the observations made hereinbefore.
8. The interim prayer made the Petitioner is disposed of with the aforementioned directions.
..………....... (S.B. Sinha) Chairperson
………………. (P.K. Rastogi) Member rkc
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free