Miss Lucy
Try free
← All judgments

VIDEOCON TELECOMMUNICATION LTD Vs UNION OF INDIA

Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal7 January 2013HON BLE MR. P.K.RASTOGI, MEMBER

Interim / procedural order — not a final adjudication. Do not cite as a holding.

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A direction by the Tribunal to release performance bank guarantees is binding on the respondent. A subsequent communication requiring the petitioner to extend those same guarantees, issued after that direction, is inconsistent with it and cannot be given effect while the application alleging non-compliance is pending. Where the balance of convenience and the imminence of a deadline are shown, the Tribunal may preserve the status quo by restraining the respondent from acting on the impugned communication pending hearing, and such an interim direction remains subject to further orders.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHIDated 7th January, 2013M.A. No. 10 of 2013InPetition No. 294 of 2012M/s Videocon Telecommunications Ltd. …PetitionerVs.Union of India …RespondentBEFORE:HON’BLE MR. P.K. RASTOGI, MEMBERFor Petitioner : Mr. Navin Chawla, AdvocateMr.Dayan Krishnan, AdvocateMr.Kirtiman Singh,AdvocateMr. T. Singhdev, AdvocateMr.W.A. Noor,AdvocateFor Respondent : NoneORDER

This Tribunal by its order dated 29.10.2012 had passed an order to release the PBGs. The petitioner has filed the present miscellaneous application stating that in spite of order dated 29.10.2012 for release of PBG to the petitioner, the respondent has issued a letter dated 3.01.2013, wherein the applicant has been directed to furnish the extension of the PBG for a minimum period of one year on or before 7.1.2013 failing which action as per license agreement including invocation of Bank Guarantee of Bank Guarantee will be initiated without any further notice.

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent.

3. It is seen that this Tribunal had passed the following order in this petition on 29.10.2012 :

“17. Failure on the part of a contracting party to discharge its obligation within a time frame and/or within a reasonable time, in the opinion of this Tribunal should be sufficient to issue a direction upon the Respondent herein to release the performance bank guarantees. 18. In the event, however, the Respondent in future finds that any further sum is payable by the Petitioner, it can realize its dues from the financial bank guarantees and/or other assets of the Petitioner.

19. These petitions are, therefore, allowed. The Respondent is hereby directed to return the PBGs, in respect of the aforementioned circles. No order as to costs.”

4. It is noticed that inspite of clear orders of this Tribunal for release of PBGs, the respondent has issued a direction to the petitioner for extension of PBGs for a further period of one year.

5. As last date for action to be taken by the petitioner is expiring today, it is directed that communication dated 3.1.2013 will not be given effect to by the respondent, pending hearing in this application. This order will be subject to any other or further orders.

6. Put up on 17th January 2013 for hearing on interim matter under the heading “for orders”.

…...……………… (P. K. Rastogi) Member /NC/

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