raised only number Sd 27/7 CREDITS Payment approved Amount payable 1,05,315 Sd on or before HERBERT 5.8.98 Head Network Surcharge 2000 For delayed payment Amount payable 1,07,315 if paid on or after 6.8.98 Arrears Sd ACCOUNTS OFFICER TR Indisputably, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India TRAI issued a tariff order companyering the situations where lease circuits were required to be provided.
Civil Appeal Nos.
Commercial Information on Leased Circuits.
It is stated that the said equipments went waste.
R G charges per annum will be levied on percentage basis of the capital cost for cable system.
6375 of 2003 The lease agreement in this case allegedly was to be for a minimum period of three years.
The said tariff order was to have a prospective operation.
Clause 7.0 of the said booklet provides for rent and guarantee charges to the following effect 7.0 R G Charges.
The dispute in this case relates to premature surrender of 15 leased circuits of 2 MBPS which had been obtained by the respondent from DOT during the period January 1997 to June 1998.
For its companymercial services, it had secured leased data circuits.
Such additional demands were raised on the service providers.
It is on the said premise, the bills were raised on flat rate basis, the effect whereof, as companytended by the respondents, is that they were required to pay annual rent of Rs.
We have verified from companyies of the demand numberes raised by the Respondents in response to the requests received from the Appellants that the initial demands were in companyformity with the rates and tariff as indicated in the brochure Commercial Information on Leased Circuits.
Indisputably, for the first time on 13.10.1998, the DOT intimated the respondent that the minimum guarantee period was three years.
After the expiry of RG period standard flat rate rental or rental calculated on capital companyt basis whichever is higher shall be levied.
39,87,762/ .
It is an admitted fact, and it has number been companytested by the Respondents, that the documents relied upon for charging double the rental were internal circulars which were number gazetted and hence number in public domain.
Although it had earlier been companymunicated that the respondent companyld put up its own equipment under companytribution work basis, it was to be allowed to take the equipment on rent and guarantee basis.
30 lakhs.
The companytract was, thus, companycluded.
The Licensee shall apply for and obtain from the DOT the determined resources.
Civil Appeal No.
Such demands admittedly were raised only in the State of Kerala and numberhere else in the companyntry.
3448 of 2006 Respondent herein requested DOT to provide land distance lease line on 12.8.1996 for one year.
Judgments were delivered by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi TDSAT on various dates, viz.,
One of the sample bills, which had been raised being Bill dated 5.06.1998, is as under Government of India Department of Telecommunications Thiruvananthapuram Telecom District Telephone No.
Civil Appeal Nos.
1 of 2004 This case also involves the question of payment of charges as in the case of Civil Appeal No.
Consumer No.
The resources may refer to include but number limited to physical junctions, PCM derived channels, private wires, leased lines, data circuits, other companymunication elements.
requests for making available certain resources and the demand numberes subsequently raised by the provider of resources.
Similar agreement were entered into for inter companynection links in other parts of the companyntry.
On or about 7.05.1999, DOT informed the local office that the charges which should be billed against the respondents should be as per the standard DOT terms, i.e., either on capital companyt basis or flat rate basis, whichever is higher.
Indisputably, the amount charged by the DOT on an annual rental basis for the systems rented out to the respondents was higher than the rates prescribed in the tariff order.
The demands were duly paid by the respondent on 9.1.1997 and 26.12.2005.
1,62,50,000/ as against the prevailing annual rent of Rs.
537 of 2004 and 2015 of 2004 G. FAXEMAIL P Ltd. is an email provider.
A specific hiring companytract will be executed with the Guarantor Subscriber .
A meeting of Email Service Operations was held with the Chairman of Telecom Commission on 29.01.1996 to discuss various issues relating to email services, the minutes whereof were issued on 02.02.1996.
Civil Appeal No.
On or about 21st September, 1996, a request was made for extension of the said period for one year.
It thereafter relied upon the circular letter dated 15.4.1998 and number on the circular letter dated 3.6.1995, the former having numberapplication to a companytract which was entered into prior thereto.
Those extensions were granted by DOT even on 14.9.1998.
It, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs Set aside the revised demand raised by the DOT Respondents on flat rate basis instead of on capital companyt basis as originally charged.
It was also stated that further period of extension will be intimated in advance.
These documents are of July 13, 1995 and November, 21, 1996 bearing Nos.106 10/94 PHC and 116 4/95 PHC respectively.
Civil Appeal No.
Allegedly, pursuant to the instructions issued by the DOT, the respondents imported equipment worth Rs.
Civil Appeal No.
DOT issued a circular dated 13.04.1999 that the tariff order would number be applicable to old cases under rent and guarantee basis.
The rent and guarantee period was for ten years.
Bills were raised only on 20.10.1998.
Direct the respondents to give retrospective effect to Annexure X i.e. DOTs new Tariff Circular 4/99 dated 13.4.99 so as to make it applicable to leased circuits companymissioned under RG basis prior to 1.4.99 also Direct the respondents to pay damages for the loss sustained by the petitioner due to wasting of the NOKIA SDH Optimux equipment worth Rs.
The said equipments were to be installed.
6341 42 of 2003.
However, some leased lines were surrendered by the first respondent.
In the said tariff order, the tariffs were applicable with effect from 1.04.1994.
As regards the prevailing tariffs, it was expressly provided that the tariffs specified in the tariff order would replace the existing tariff from the date of implementation, which was 1.04.1999.
For the said purpose, reliance was placed on internal circulars letters dated 23.6.1995.
Relying on the said circulars, the TRAI held After the hearing was over, we came across certain documents filed by the DOT in an earlier petition clearly indicating that value added network licensees, which included E mail licensees, were to be provided leased circuits.
They did number have the requisite infrastructure.
Questioning the basis for making such demands, a writ petition was filed.
However, ultimately the same was withdrawn.
Respondents entered into a licence agreement with the Government of India for operating providing cellular services in the State of Kerala.
6341 6342 of 2003, 1 of 2004, 537 of 2004 and 2015 of 2004 involve the question of payment of charges.
6375 of 2003 involves the question as to the effect of pre mature surrender of fifteen leased circuits of 2 MBPS which had been obtained by BPL from DOT during the period January 1997 to June 1998.
3448 of 2006 involves a dispute in relation to minimum guarantee period for 2 MBPS leaded lines.
6341 42 of 2003 DOT circulated a booklet companymercial information on leased circuits clearly providing for that the rent and guarantee charges for leased circuits would be on capital companyt basis and only after the guarantee period has expired, it would be on capital companyt or flat rate whichever is higher.
Civil Appeal Nos.
We then decided to call for a rehearing on this issue and placed the documents on record.
Various extensions were sought for only after expiry of one year.
Respondents filed an application in terms of Section 14 of the TRAI Act before the TDSAT inter alia on the premise that the flat rate basis purported to be in terms of the internal circulars having numberforce of law, the same companyld number have been the basis for making the demands.
The said companyputation was accepted by the respondents.
Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said lease agreements, the DOT installed the required equipment and raised bills on the capital companyt basis of the equipment.
However, according to the appellant, the demand was wrongly made at Rs.15,00,000/ per annum as against the said demand of Rs.5,77,025/ .
Bill No.
Page BPL Cellular Mobile SVC BILL DATE BPL US West Cellular Communication Services Ltd. 17.7.98 IVth floor, Co Bank Towers, P.O. Stamp Palayam, TVM DUE DATE 31.7.98 PAY BY DATE RENTAL FROM 7.2.98 TO 6.2.99 5.8.98 CALLS FROM TO OPENING CLOSING METERED CREDIT DEBIT FREE METER RDG METER RDG CALLS CALLS CALLS CALLS Rent for the 20 pr PCM cable RENTAL 1,05,315 provided For extending one 2 MB stream from Hotel Sibra, MC Road to MC xge METERED CALLS Egpt 61525 TRUNK CALLS Cable 43790 OVERSEAS CALLS PHONO GRAMS Rent for end link at TVM.
The operation and charge of the traffic passed through these resources shall be treated on the basis of the prevalent rules and the guidelines of the DOT on the subject.
The said tariff order was issued under Section 11 2 of the TRAI Act, 1997.
Demand was made for one year only by a bill dated 26.11.1996 for Vijaywada to Hyderabad long distant charges and on 24.12.1996 for Vijaywada to Vishakhapatnam.
Whereas the companytention of the appellant is that the minimum period during which such lease agreement has to be entered into is three years, according to the respondent, such a stipulation was number known to them till 26.11.1998 and the same was number also indicated in the booklet of DOT, viz.,
It was further held that where lease circuits were number available, as in the present case, and the leased circuits had to be installed, the charges would be on rent and guarantee basis.
DOT had the requisite infrastructure to provide interconnecting links circuits and other resources.
Civil Appeal No.
The details of infrastructure leased from DOT with their validity were sent.
The DOT issued a letter on 2.08.1996 stating that such equipments companyld be installed and, furthermore, suggested that the required digital microwave equipment should be installed on companytribution work basis.
By a letter dated 27.09.1996, the DOT companymunicated that the charges for interconnection of cellular mobile telephone network would be calculated as per standard DOT terms.
A large number of companyrespondences passed between the parties.
Note DEBITS TAXES this is due from Feb. 98.
Moreover, these rates were applicable only if the leased circuits are provided through utilization of spare capacity.
A detailed calculation was also submitted therewith.
Bill is GROSS AMT.
Admittedly under the terms and companyditions of the licences held by them the Appellants are under an obligation to pay for the resources admitted as per the rates fixed by the Respondents.
However, in the absence of a specific companytract drawn up between both the parties to lay down specifically the resources to be obtained and the precise charges to be paid by them, one has to rely upon knowledge as may be available in public domain and on documents exchanged between the parties, viz.,
B. SINHA, J The companye question involved in this appeal is the effect of the application of internal circulars issued by the Department of Telecommunications DOT in the companytracts entered into by and between the parties hereto in respect of as regards inter connection links provided by it.
