LexBHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED versus VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2016] 7 S.C.R. 746 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED v. VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 8107 of2010) SEPTEMBER23, 2016 [RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charge Regulations, 2003: C Demand raised by BSNLfor alleged tampering with the Caller Line Identification (CL!) - Whether BSNL could levy the highest applicable !UC charges on the basis of Clause 11 of circular dated 28.01.2004 - Held: Interconnect agreement between the parties did not carry any stipulation that in the event any invalid or tempered CLJ is transferred to BSNL network, BSNL would be entitled to raise D the demand at the highest slab rate - !UC Regulations did not contain any such provision and the same could not have been so created on the basis of the unilateral circular dated 28.1.2004 - Telecommunications. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Reliance E Communication Ltd. (2011) 1 SCC 394 : 2010 (15) SCR 705; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v .. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 13 597:2008 (8) SCR 729 - referred to. Case Law Reference F ~oio (15) SCR 705 2008 (~) SCR 729 referred to referred to Paras Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8107 of 2010. G From the Judgment and Order dated 11 .02 .20 I 0 of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi in Petition No. 56 of2009 WITH C.A. Nos. 8108 and 8269 of2010 H C. A. No. 1105 of2013. 746 . BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED v. VODAFONE ESSAR 747 GUJARAT LIMITED Ranjit Kumar, SG., Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG., Shyam Divan,Ramji A Srinivasan, Sr. Advs., Abhishek Kumar, K. Vijay Kumar, Gagan Gupta, Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Navin Chawla, Aditya V. Singh, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Karan Dev Chopra, Harsh Trivedi, Ms. Manik Karanjawala, (For M/s. Karanjawala & Co.), Advs. for the appearing parties. The Juug:nent of the Court was delivered by B RANJAN GOGOi, J. CIVIL APPEAL N0.8107 OF 2010 I. The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 11.02.2010 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') by which the demand raised by the appellant BSNL on the respondent, Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited, for alleged tampering with the Caller Line Identification (CU) has been set aside by the learned Tribunal. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed at the outset. In the year 1996 the competent authority granted a license to one M/s. Fascel Limited (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Vodafone) under Section 4(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. As the successor-in-interest of Fascel Limited, the respondent entered into an Interconnect Agreement with BSNL forthe purpose of interconnecting its network with the BSNL. Under the aforesaid Agreement, the respondent was liable to pay access charges to BSNL for calls originating from its network and terminating in the BSNL's network. Under the Agreement there was an obligation on the part of the responJent to transmit the authentic CLI for the purpose of levy of charges in terms of Agreement. CLI essentially is the information generated by the network which identifies and forwards the calling number. It must be mentioned, at this stage, that it is during this period of time that the telecommunication sector was undergoing revolutionary changes and witnessing innovations to deal with which both the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) and the regulatory body i.e. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had issued a series of advisories anci regulatory measures some of which are being indicated hereinafter. 3. To the issues arising in the present case would be relevant the circular dated 23.06.2003 issued by the DoT specifying that CLI cannot c D E F G H 748 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R. be tampered in any circumstances. By the same circular the DoT also gave directions to service providers on how to prevent tampering of CLI. The Telecom Regulatory Authority oflndia (TRAI) had issued a directive dated 24.11.2003 to BSNL not to tamper with CLI of any call; notto offer calls without CLI and also not to accept any calls without CL!. This was followed by a circular dated 20.01.2004 reiterating the above directions. In exercise of powers under Section 36 of the TRAI Act, 1997 the Regulatory Body also made a set of Regulations known as the Interconnect Usage Charge Regulations, 2003 (!
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.