Adjudication Of The Issues That Have ... vs Unknown on 13 May, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Adjudication Of The Issues That Have ... vs Unknown on 13 May, 2013

Bench: Dipankar Datta

                                                  1


3.5.13

                             W. P. 14509 (W) of 2013


         In re: Manthan Broadband Services Private Limited and another
                                                 ... Petitioners


         Mr. Saptanshu Basu
         Mr. Samarjit Ghosh                ...For the Petitioners

         Mr. Srijan Nayan
         Mr. Raja Saha
         Mr. S. Bandyopadhyay              ... For the Respondent

No.2 This writ petition is directed against notices issued by the respondent no.2, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Mumbai as well as an office at 10, Wood Street, Kolkata-700 016. In terms of the said notices, substantial sums of money have been demanded by the respondent no.2 from the petitioners. It has been threatened that if the money demanded is not paid by them, consequences would follow.

Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that in terms of the agreement entered into by and between the petitioners and the respondent no.2, disputes and differences and disagreement arising out of or in connection with or in relation to such agreement shall be finally decided by the Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'TDSAT') established under Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. He also submits that the 'TDSAT has been approached but since it is not functional, the remedy provided by the Act is illusory. He has also referred to 2 Section 15 of the Act, which bars a civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter, which the TDSAT is empowered by or under the Act to determine. According to him, the petitioner is presently remediless and, therefore, the petitioners have no other option but to approach this Court.

Mr. Basu has referred to the Court the decisions of learned Single Judges of the Delhi High Court and the Jharkhand High Court entertaining writ petitions between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 and has submitted that the Court may entertain the writ petition and grant interim relief, as claimed.

I am afraid, I cannot agree with Mr. Basu.

Writ remedy is an extra-ordinary remedy without doubt but it is not a panacea for all ills. A writ petition is not maintainable in respect of a dispute between two private parties, which is the case here. The Union of India has been included in the array of respondents but it has little to do in the matter of adjudication of the issues that have been raised. More importantly, no relief has been claimed against it. On the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 (paragraph 51), I hold that this writ petition is not maintainable.

That apart, it appears from clause 13.16.3 of the agreement that in respect of the disputes and differences raised by and between the parties, the Courts of New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction. Having regard to the forum selection clause too, the petitioners have disabled themselves to approach this Court.

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. 3 This order shall not preclude the petitioners to seek remedy in accordance with law.

Let photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.

(Dipankar Datta, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)