9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deferred spectrum charges; they approached the TDSAT, but without success. Their appeals to this court fared better; the time for making payment was extended somewhat. Upon default (in payment of the charges), the Union invoked guarantees under the sets of licenses. This court is of the opinion that the order of the TDSAT does not call for any interference. The Union nowhere disputes that the respondent licensees liability toward payment of deferred spectrum charges, in May, 2018, was to the tune of ₹ 774.25 crores - there is no rationale for the Union to resist the demand for refund of excess amounts. The TDSAT, in the opinion of this court, exercised its discretion, with respect, circumspectly, because the entire amount of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pectrum license it had successfully bid for to NIA 2013 devolved on RCL. The Union approved this transfer on 20.10.2017. 3. The Union invited bids for auction of further spectrum bandwidth in 2015; the bids of RCL and the second appellant (hereafter RTL ) were successful in respect of three kinds of spectrum in several regions/circles; licenses were issued to them. In terms of NIA 2013, the third instalment of deferred spectrum charges of ₹ 281.45 crores fell due from RCL, which could not be paid by it. This led to the encashment on 11.05.2018, of bank guarantees furnished, to the extent of ₹ 281.45 crores. The total extent of bank guarantee furnished was ₹ 390.41 crores. Contemporaneously, the deferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of time towards payment of deferred spectrum charges, (under the licenses acquired under the NIA 2013 and NIA 2015). The reliefs claimed in TP 56/2018 and TP 58/2018 were declined by TDSAT. Consequently, Civil Appeal No.4432-4433/2018 was preferred to this court which was disposed of by granting time to the respondent licensees till 12.05.2018 for making payments towards deferred spectrum instalment charges. 5. As narrated previously, these deferred instalment charges could not be made within the time granted; consequently, the Union encashed bank guarantees to the tune of 908.91 crores as against the actual amount Rs. of ₹ 774.25 crores due and payable by the respondent licensees. On 13.08.2018, the respondent license ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g charges against the petitioner have already been taken note of and an amount of ₹ 30.33 crores approx. has been adjusted out of the encashed amount of ₹ 908 crores. The remaining amount of ₹ 104.34 crores is lying and unadjusted amount should be returned to the petitioner without prejudice to the rights of either of the parties for any other charges which the petitioner may be found to be liable to pay. Since the petitioner has reservations against the adjusted amount of ₹ 30.33 crores, it may file its reply by way of rejoinder within three weeks. Post the matter under the same head on 29.1.2019. 8. The Union contends that TDSAT s impugned order is contrary to clause 4.5b(ix) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated, has already filed its claim before the resolution professional for the said deferred spectrum instalments for the year 2019. Therefore, it cannot be permitted to claim adjustment of the unlawfully encashed amount towards subsequent deferred spectrum liabilities. The respondents also urge that a subsequent default of the deferred spectrum instalment for the year 2019, is a separate cause of action and the Union has remedies in law to recover those so called dues. It cannot arbitrarily and illegally withhold return of excess amount, despite there being a judicial order to the effect. 10. The facts narrated above show that the respondent-licencees faced financial constraints; apparently telecom service providers as a clas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... encashment of the bank guarantees furnished by the respondents, however, was to the extent of 908.91 crores. It is Rs. also a matter of record that the respondents furnished another bank guarantee to the tune of ₹ 774.25 crores. There is consequently logic and merit in the contention of RCL/RTL that the Union unreasonably refused to refund the excess amounts. The Union s argument that there were subsequent defaults or short payments in respect of liability towards later periods, or its objection that the impugned directions could not have been issued in execution proceedings, are insubstantial. As noticed earlier, the bank guarantees for the later periods were furnished by the respondents (to the extent of ₹ 774.25 crores). In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
