Skip to main content

Supreme Court: Different tariff over making calls to another service provided arbitrary

Differential tariffs over subscribers making calls from one private provider to other private service provider and from private network to BSNL/MTNL held arbitrary

Supreme Court: While deciding that whether the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal was right in terming the action of the private telecom service providers (forming the appellant association) for levying differential tariffs for calls made from their network to the BSNL/MTNL networks compared to the calls made from one private telecom service provider to the other, as discriminatory, the Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and stated that such classification of subscribers into two categories on the basis of calls made by them from private network to another private network and from private network to BSNL/MTNL network is arbitrary and fails to satisfy the test for reasonable classification laid down in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.

In the instant case, the appellant raised questions at the directive issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) wherein they were directed to discontinue differential tariffs levied in the  States of Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh for calls to the network of BSNL and MTNL as compared to calls terminating in the network of other private operators as it was discriminatory and inconsistent with the amended licence condition notified by the Department of Telecommunication. The counsel for the appellant Navin Chawla contended that prescribing differential tariffs does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution as the similarity of the class has to be decided on basis of similarity of the features of its constituents and the costs involved in the nature of the calls are different. Mohit Paul on behalf of the respondent argued that private GSM providers were duty bound to arrange leased lines to establish direct connection to the BSNL/MTNL networks as they had done amongst each other.

The Court on perusing the arguments and the factual situation, observed that TRAI in its Telecommunication Tariff Order, 1999 which is subject to periodical amendments, had inserted a ‘non-discrimination clause’ prohibiting the service providers to discriminate between the subscribers in matter of application of tariffs, but the issue was  whether the clause is applicable to the  subscribers making call to another private network from a private network as compared to the class making call from a private network to BSNL/MTNL network, to which the Court answered in positive and upheld the decision of the Tribunal terming the classification of subscribers on the ground that the call ends with the private parties and another on the ground that the call ends with BSNL/MTNL as arbitrary and discriminatory. [Cellular Operators Association of India v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 82, decided on 30.01.2015]

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/02/02/differential-tariffs-over-subscribers-making-calls-from-one-private-provider-to-other-private-service-provider-and-private-to-bsnl-mtnl-held-arbitrary.aspx

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even