The Secretary Of State vs Mask And Co. on 15 March, 1940
Reference in this regard is also made to the judgment dated 15.03.1940 of
the Privy Council in The Secretary of State Vs. Mask & Co. and to Modi
Rubbers Ltd. Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1148/2002 (DB). It is further
contended that though the respondent had before the TDSAT and in the
appeal against the judgment of TDSAT before the Supreme Court argued to
the contrary but has now accepted the judgment of the TDSAT. It is yet
further contended that though the appeal against the judgment of the TDSAT
is pending but there is no stay therein. Attention is invited to Section 3 (1-
AA) of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (Telegraph Act) to contend that all
appliances, instruments, apparatus, not only used but even capable of use for
transmission and reception of signals, are included in the definition of
„Telegraph‟ and it is contended that the instruments and equipments of
petitioners are so capable and thus „telegraph‟ within the meaning of
Telegraph Act and thus the need for petitioners to be within the jurisdiction
of TDSAT. It is yet further contended that the services provided by
petitioners are not akin to providing or letting office space. After the orders
were reserved, copy of order dated 02.09.2013 of an Arbitral Tribunal in
ARB.P. 236/2012, ARB.P. 9/2013, O.M.P. 206/2012, O.M.P. 173/2012 & O.M.P. 312/2012 Page 7 of 33
arbitration between Vodafone Spacetel Ltd., a infrastructure provider as the
petitioners herein and the respondent S Tel Pvt. Ltd. allowing the application
of respondent S Tel Pvt. Ltd. under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act for the
reason of the dispute being not arbitrable was also handed over.