UNION OF INDIA versus TATA TELESERVICES (MAHARASHTRA) LTD.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 285 · Decided: 23-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
TATA TELESERVICES (MAHARASHTRA) LTD. 
AUGUST 23, 2007 
!H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.J 
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997; Ss. 14, 16K and 
18/Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; s.100, Order Vlll Rule 6A/Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973; S.195: 
A 
B 
c 
Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal-Contract between 
Union of India, the Licensor and a service provider, the Licensee-Breach of 
terms of agreement-Damage-Claim and counter claim-Settlement of-
Tribunal upheld the claim of Licensee rejecting the counter claim of licensor 
holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim-On appeal, D 
Held: In the counter claim by Union of India, even if some vagueness noticed 
by the Tribunal, it could have directed the party concerned to remove the 
same in the interests of justice-Normally, a right to make a claim include 
a right to make a counter claim-There is no reason to whittle down the 
right so given in terms of s.14(1) of the Act-A dispute arising after the 
acceptance of a tender, pending issuance of licence even after the expiry of E 
the stipulated time limit, would fall within the provisions of the. s. l 4(a) of the 
Act-A Specialised Tribunal as TDSAT constituted for the purpose of dealing 
with specialised matters/disputes arising out of license granted under the 
Act-Any breach arising after acceptance of the offer of a Tender would 
normally be termed as disputes liable to be settled by the Specialised F 
Tribunal-In terms of the procedure,- as prescribed u/s 16 of the Act, the 
Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure as laid down under Civil 
Procedure Code but shall be governed by the principles of Natural Justice-
The dispute in the present case arises out of breach of conditions after 
accepting the letter of intent by one of the party, therefore, it could be settled 
by the Tribunal-Under the circumstances, TDSAT erred in dismissing the G 
counter claim of the Licensor as not maintainable-Hence, the claim and the 
counter claim remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh in accordance 
with law-Direction issued-Transfer of Property Act,,-lndian Contract Act, 
1872-Administrative Law-Principles of Natural Justice. 
285 
H 
286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Jurisdiction of Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal-To 
entertain counter claim by the Union of India/licensor-Held: Yes, TDSAT 
could entertain such a claim in terms of S. 14(1) and 14(A) of the Act. 
·Appellant, Union of India, has invited tender for grant of licence in 
respect of certain Telecom Service Contract. In response, tender proposal of 
B the respondent was considered by the appellant. The respondent, after having 
conveyed its acceptance of the Letter oflntent, failed to fulfil the promise made 
by it. Appellant raised a demand of certain sum as damage in lieu of breach 
of contract. Aggrieved, the respondent approached the Telecom Disputes 
Settlement & Appellate Tribunal praying for a declaration that the action of 
C the Union of India in raising a claim and in recovering the amount as per its 
demand dated 10.8.1999, was bad in law and be set aside; for a declaration 
that the set off made by invoking condition 19 of the licence was illegal and 
unauthorised and for setting aside the same and for directing the appellant to 
refund the amount together with interest from the date of the purported set 
off of that amount with the amounts due to the respondent till the date of refund 
D and for other consequential and incidental reliefs. Appellant, Union oflndia, 
had also filed an appeal counter claiming the same amount. The Tribunal 
upheld the claim of the respondent, rejecting the counter claim of the 
appellant-Union of India and also held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain 
a counter claim at the instance of the.appellant. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It may be true that in the prayer portion in the written 
statement an order or decree in terms ofthe·counter claim had not been sought 
for by the appellant. But the claim as made in the written statement relates to 
F the claim based on the failure of the respondent; after having conveyed its 
acceptance of the Letter oflntent to provide service in the Kamataka Telecom 
Circle and the damages allegedly suffered by the:appellant as a consequence 
and the entitlement of the appellant to reimbursement of the specified sum 
from the resp

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