UNION OF INDIA versus RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
UNION OF INDIA
v.
RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2020)
JANUARY 07, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Telecommunication – Telecom Dispute Settlement – Refund
of the excess amount – Respondents were not able to pay the deferred
spectrum charges to the tune of Rs.774.25 crores – The Union
encashed bank guarantees to the tune of Rs. 908.91 crores as against
the actual amount of Rs.774.25 crores due and payable by
respondent licensees – Respondents approached TDSAT and sought
a direction for the return of Rs.134.66 crores, i.e. the excess amount
(the difference between the amount of Rs.908.91 crores against
admitted dues of Rs.774.25 crores) – The TDSAT partly allowed the
respondents’ application and after adjusting the charge of Rs.30.33
crores against the respondents, the remaining amount of Rs.104.34
crores was directed to be returned – The Union contended that there
were subsequent defaults or short payments in respect of liability
towards later periods – On appeal, held: No interference required
in the order of the TDSAT – The Union nowhere disputed that the
respondent licensees liability toward payment of deferred spectrum
charges was to the tune of Rs.774.25 crores – The total amount
realised upon encashment of the bank guarantees furnished by the
respondents, however, was to the extent of Rs.908.91 crores –
Further, the respondents had furnished another bank guarantee to
the tune of Rs.774.25 crores – There was consequently, logic and
merit in the contention of the respondents that the Union
unreasonably refused to refund the excess amounts – The Union
contention that there were subsequent defaults or short payments
in respect of liability towards later periods was insubstantial, as
bank guarantee for later periods were furnished (Rs.774.25 crores)
– In the circumstances, there was no rationale for the Union to
resist the demand for refund of the excess amounts – The TDSAT
had exercised its discretion circumspectly, because the entire amount
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
of Rs.134.66 crores claimed was not allowed, rather direction was
issued in respect of Rs.104.34 crores – Therefore, no merit in the
appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. On a recapitulation of all circumstances, and the
various terms of NIA 2013 and NIA 2015, 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 Rs. 774.25 crores. The total
amount realized upon encashment of the bank guarantees
furnished by the respondents, however, was to the extent of Rs.
908.91 crores. It is also a matter of record that the respondents
furnished another bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 774.25
crores. There is consequently logic and merit in the contention
of RCL/RTL (respondents) 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
Rs. 774.25 crores). In these circumstances, 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
Rs. 134.66 crores claimed in the application was not allowed;
rather the direction issued was in respect of Rs. 104. 34 crores.
[Para 11] [7-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 32 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2018 of the Telecom
Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Telecom Petition
No. 196 of 2018.
Sanjay Jain, ASG, Apoorv Kurup, Sachin Sharma, Zoheb Hossain,
Baibhaw Gahlhot, Dharendra Patel, Padmesh Mishra, Gurmeet Singh
Makker, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
Raju Ramachandran, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Agarwal,
Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Sahlly Bhasin, Prateek Gupta, Ms. Madhavi
Agrawal, Ms. Ambika Mathur, E. C. Agrawala,  Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. With the consent of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.