2002 (8) TMI 785 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order of the learned Single Judge.
2. Dispute regarding termination of the public switched telephone network connecting licence for U.P. (East and West Circle).
3. Breach of terms of the licence by the appellant-company.
4. Imposition of conditions by the learned Single Judge for payment of licence fee.
5. Interpretation of clause 15.3 of the Licence Agreement regarding continuity of service.
6. Adjustment of payment made by the appellant towards licence fees for multiple circles.
7. Allegation of discrimination in the application of migration package under the new telecom policy 1999.
8. Concerns raised by the appellant regarding the payment of a substantial amount as licence fee.
9. Consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances by the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The High Court of Delhi heard an appeal against the order of the Single Judge regarding a dispute over the termination of a telephone network connecting licence for U.P. Circle. The appellant-company had breached the licence terms by defaulting on payments, leading to a significant outstanding amount due to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT).
2. The learned Single Judge imposed conditions on the appellant for payment of the licence fee to prevent cancellation of the licence. The High Court found the conditions justified, considering the appellant's default in payments and the need to balance equities between the parties.
3. The interpretation of clause 15.3 of the Licence Agreement was discussed, focusing on the authority's obligation to ensure service continuity upon licence termination. The court opined that the steps outlined in the clause were not mandatory in all cases, especially when service continuity was guaranteed through other licensees.
4. The appellant's argument regarding the adjustment of a payment towards multiple licences was dismissed, as the appellant had initially agreed to the adjustment for all licences. The court found no merit in the appellant's attempt to adjust the amount solely towards one licence.
5. Allegations of discrimination in the application of the migration package under the new telecom policy were rejected, emphasizing the appellant's unconditional acceptance of the package.
6. Concerns raised by the appellant regarding the substantial amount of licence fee payment were addressed by the court, noting the appellant's responsibility for the situation due to previous defaults in payments.
7. The High Court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision, emphasizing that the imposed conditions were justified and not arbitrary. The appeal was dismissed, granting the appellant two weeks to comply with the order.