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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.