LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

The appeals are dismissed because the appellant was a beneficiary and confederate of the arbitrary and unconstitutional First Come First Serve allocation of 2G licences as found in CPIL, and being in pari delicto is not entitled to restitution under Section 65 or frustration relief under Section 56; the TDSAT...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Loop Telecom and Trading Limited; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Under Section 18 of the TRAI Act / Final Judgment on Appeal by Supreme Court (judgment Delivered 03 March 2022)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
2 G Spectrum Allocation, Unified Access Service Licence (uasl), Refund of Entry Fee, Restitution Under Section 65 Indian Contract Act, Frustration Under Section 56 Indian Contract Act, TDSAT Jurisdiction Under TRAI Act, In Pari Delicto Defence, Set Off Policy After CPIL Judgment, Effect of CPIL Judgment
Telecommunications Contract Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Tribunal Jurisdiction 2 G Spectrum Allocation Unified Access Service Licence (uasl) Refund of Entry Fee +6 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loop Telecom and Trading Limited

Appellant

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Under Section 18 of the TRAI Act / Final Judgment on Appeal by Supreme Court (judgment Delivered 03 March 2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant is entitled to refund of Entry Fee after quashing of UASLs in CPIL
  2. 2 Whether TDSAT had jurisdiction to adjudicate claim for refund of Entry Fee
  3. 3 Whether doctrines of frustration (s.56) and restitution (s.65) of the Indian Contract Act entitle appellant to restitution

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed because the appellant was a beneficiary and confederate of the arbitrary and unconstitutional First Come First Serve allocation of 2G licences as found in CPIL, and being in pari delicto is not entitled to restitution under Section 65 or frustration relief under Section 56; the TDSAT correctly declined to grant the refund claim in the context of the CPIL quashing and the appellant's conduct and remedies in those proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of