![\"\"](\"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/ettelecom-default.jpg\")
A bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud<\/a> said that it was “pari delicto (in equal fault or wrong)” with DoT and the then officials of the Union government and was a “beneficiary of the first come first serve policy<\/a> intended to favour a group of private bidding entities at the cost of the public exchequer”.
The company’s contention that it was exculpated from any wrong doing by the 2G judgment is patently erroneous, the bench, which also included Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath<\/a>,said.
“The process leading up to the award of the UASLs (licenses) and the allocation of the 2G spectrum was found to be arbitrary and constitutionally infirm.”
“The need for an open and transparent bidding process for the allocation of natural resources was substituted by a process which was designed to confer unlawful benefits on a group of selected bidders by which the appellant benefited.”
“The beneficiaries of the patently unconstitutional mechanism deployed for the allocation of spectrum were corporate entities who were favoured under the First Come First Serve policy. The appellant is one of them.”
The company has tried to obviate these findings by relying on its acquittal by the Special Judge, CBI, the bench noted.
“... the criminal trial before the Special Judge, CBI, was limited to the question as to whether its promoters had cheated the DoT by providing a false representation of its compliance with Clause 8 of the UASL guidelines,since it was allegedly being controlled by the Essar group.”
The Special Judge, CBI, acquitted the promoters… since the prosecution was unable to prove that: (i) officers of DoT considered its representation to be false; (ii) the company was engaging in a sham transaction; or (iii) the company was actually controlled by the Essar group, the top court said.
“Hence, the acquittal of the promoters… of these criminal charges does not efface or obliterate the findings contained in the final judgment of this court in CPIL Hence, as a beneficiary and confederate of fraud, the company cannot be lent assistance of this court for obtaining the refund of the entry fee.”
Loop had claimed a refund of Rs 1454.94 crores representing the entry fee (together with interest) paid by it for 2G licences for 21 service areas. It had also claimed damages caused to it by the cancellation of its licenses.
It claimed that the government’s subsequent set-off policy was a concession that companies could seek restitution for cancellation of licenses.
The government on its part argued that the entry fee was a non-refundable fee.
It also contended that the company’s acquittal had no bearing on the findings of this court in the CPIL case according to which UASL and allocation of spectrum was held to be stage managed and violative of the principles of public law.
This precludes the company from claiming any refund or restitution.
As a matter of fact, this court in CPIL imposed costs of Rs 50 lakhs on the company for wrongly benefitting from the wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional exercise of licence and spectrum allocation.
Consequently, even under the contract law, it was disentitled from claiming any refund or restitution of the entry fee based on the principle of in pari delicto.
The court also deprecated the “rising trend of cases where parties have attempted to take another bite at the cherry by initiating proceedings over various forums, particularly to circumvent the jurisdiction of this court which is in seisin of the matter.”
“A purportedly ancillary remedy is urged in another forum as a dilatory tactic or as an attempt at forum shopping.”
<\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":89962778,"title":"Kodak, Treeview announce distribution partnership for televisions","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/kodak-treeview-announce-distribution-partnership-for-televisions\/89962778","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"telecomnews"}],"related_content":[],"msid":89963540,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"SC cites 2G taint to deny Loop Telecom refund of entry fee, damages","synopsis":"A bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said that it was \u201cpari delicto (in equal fault or wrong)\u201d with DoT and the then officials of the Union government and was a \u201cbeneficiary of the first come first serve policy intended to favour a group of private bidding entities at the cost of the public exchequer\u201d.","titleseo":"telecomnews\/sc-dismisses-plea-of-loop-telecom-seeking-refund-of-licence-fee-damages","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[{"author_name":"Samanwaya Rautray","author_link":"\/author\/479228156\/samanwaya-rautray","author_image":"https:\/\/etimg.etb2bimg.com\/authorthumb\/479228156.cms?width=100&height=100&hostid=268","author_additional":{"thumbsize":false,"msid":479228156,"author_name":"Samanwaya Rautray","author_seo_name":"samanwaya-rautray","designation":"Editor","agency":false}}],"analytics":{"comments":0,"views":1378,"shares":0,"engagementtimems":6858000},"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"ETTelecom","artdate":"2022-03-03 11:58:13","lastupd":"2022-03-03 18:46:53","breadcrumbTags":["loop telecom limited","policy","ngo","loop telecom","department of telecom","centre of public interest litigation","unified access licences","vikram nath","chandrachud"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"telecomnews\/sc-dismisses-plea-of-loop-telecom-seeking-refund-of-licence-fee-damages"}}" data-authors="[" samanwaya rautray"]" data-category-name="" data-category_id="" data-date="2022-03-03" data-index="article_1">
- Telecom乐动扑克News
- 3分钟阅读
SC引用2 g污点否认循环电信退还报名费,赔偿
长椅上由正义共Chandrachud说,这是“同等抓了(在平等的过失或错误的)”点,然后联合政府的官员,是一个“先到先得受益者政策旨在支持一群私人投标单位在公共财政大臣”的成本。
读到
长椅上共为首的正义Chandrachud说它是“同等抓了(在平等的过失或错误的)”点,然后联合政府的官员,是一个“先到先得的受益者政策旨在支持一群私人投标单位在公共财政大臣”的成本。
公司的竞争,这是旨在从任何错误的做2 g的判断显然是错误的,板凳上,也包括法官苏利耶康德和Vikram纳说。
的过程导致奖UASLs(许可证)和2 g频谱的分配被发现任意和宪法虚弱。”
”需要一个开放和透明的竞标过程代替了自然资源的分配过程,旨在赋予非法利益在一组选定的投标人,上诉人受益。”
“公然违宪的受益者机制部署的频谱分配是公司实体支持下先到先得的政策。上诉人是其中之一。”
该公司曾试图消除这些发现依靠其特殊的法官无罪释放,CBI,板凳上指出。
“…特殊前的刑事审判法官,CBI,仅限于问题其发起人是否作弊的点通过提供虚假表示其符合条款8 UASL指南的,因为它是据称由Essar集团控制的。”
CBI,特别法官判无罪的发起人…因为原告无法证明:(i)官员考虑的点表示是错误的;(2)公司是从事一个虚假的事务;或(3)公司实际上是由Essar集团控制,最高法院说。
“因此,启动子的无罪释放…这些刑事指控不抹去或消除结果包含在这个法院的最终判决CPIL因此,作为受益人和南方的欺诈,公司不能借援助法院获得退款的报名费。”
循环声称退款Rs 1454.94卢比代表报名费(连同利息)支付的2 g牌照21服务领域。它还声称损害引起的注销许可证。
它声称政府的后续断流政策是一个让步,公司可以寻求赔偿取消许可证。
政府方面认为,报名费退还的费用。
还声称,该公司的无罪释放没有轴承CPIL案例研究发现法院根据UASL和频谱分配被认为是阶段管理和违反公法原则。
这排除了公司声称任何退款或赔偿。
CPIL事实上,这个法院实施的成本为公司错误地受益于Rs 50卢比完全任意的执照和违宪的锻炼和频谱分配。
因此,即使在合同法,剥夺权利声称任何退款或赔偿的报名费在同等抓的原则。
法院也弃用“上升趋势的情况下,政党都试图再咬的樱桃启动程序在不同的论坛,特别是绕过这个法院的管辖权在依法占有。”
“据说辅助疗法是在另一个论坛敦促不慌不忙的策略或作为一个尝试论坛购物。”
评论
现在评论 阅读评论(1)所有评论
找到这个评论进攻?
下面选择你的理由并单击submit按钮。这将提醒我们的版主采取行动