Trai?s jurisdiction
Holding that the Centre has an exclusive privilege over regulating the telecom sector, the Supreme Court said that the government?s say on the terms and conditions of licence agreements will prevail over the regulatory and other non-recommendatory functions of Trai.
The apex court, in a huge batch of appeals and cross-appeals led by Union of India vs Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India, said, ?If there is a difference between Trai and the Central government with regard to a particular term or condition of a licence, as in the present case (validity of the definition of adjusted gross revenue in the licence agreement), the recommendations of Trai will not prevail and instead the decision of the Central government will be final and binding.?
It set aside the TDSAT order that excluded income from dividend and interest on savings and capital gains as well as benefits from foreign exchange from the purview of AGR for calculating the revenue share licence fee paid to the government by the telecom companies.
The apex court said that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide upon the validity of the terms and conditions incorporated in the licence of a service provider, but can decide disputes on the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the licence.
Compensation claims
The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to appoint another unbiased person as a ?competent authority? for the settlement of compensation claims of farmers whose land was acquired for laying the pipeline by Mukesh Ambani-owned Reliance Industries for transporting natural gas in Gujarat.
Quashing the appointment of VI Gohil in a batch of cases led by Trilok Sudhirbhai Pandya vs Union of India & Ors, it said that where there is a likelihood of bias, what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in the mind of the party.
?The proper approach for the judge is not to look at his own mind and ask himself, however honestly, ?Am I biased?? but to look at the mind of the party before him,? it added.
While the farmers had filed claims for compensation under Section 10 of the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, before the Competent Authority, they had objected to the sitting of the Competent Authority at the premises of Reliance.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed their pleas by saying that simply because the Competent Authority was discharging the function from the premises of the company and was getting pay and allowances and perquisites directly from it, the appointment of the Competent Authority cannot be held to be as one vitiated by the bias.
Baby?s loan repayment
Giving suggestions about how cheque bounce cases should be dealt with by the courts, the Supreme Court has suggested that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, should be amended so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The apex court, in the case of R Vijayan vs Baby, said that the courts, in the cases of conviction, should uniformly exercise the power to levy a fine up to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of the amount as compensation to the complainant.
According to the apex court, uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts not only would increase the credibility of a cheque as a negotiable instrument but also the credibility of courts of justice, as such complaints seldom reach finality before 3-4 years.
In this case, Vijayan had filed a complaint after a cheque for R20,000 issued by Baby towards loan repayment was dishonoured.
While the First Class Magistrate found the accused guilty and asked her to pay a fine and compensation and sentenced her to imprisonment for one month, the First Additional Sessions Judge acquitted her.
However, the Kerala High Court restored the conviction but not the direction for payment of compensation on the ground that the sentence cannot co-exist with the imposition of fine.
indu.bhan@expressindia.com