Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution ... vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 11 November, 2013 cites

Cellular Operators Association Of ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 December, 2002

In Cellular Operators Association of India Vs. Union of India and others (2003) 3 SCC 186, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that TDSAT was required to exercise its jurisdiction in terms of Section 14-A of the Act. It was further held that the extent of jurisdiction of a court or a Tribunal depends upon the relevant statute. TDSAT is a creator of statute. Its jurisdiction is also conferred by the statute. In this particular case the matter was relating to question of promoting wireless in local loop with limited mobility. In this case Appellant approached the Tribunal under Section 14 (a) challenging the decision of the Commission promoting the fix service provider to offer a wireless local loop (WLL) with limited mobility. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment rejected the application which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this case the matter was squarely within the jurisdiction of the TDSAT. In the present Appeal, under Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, Page 29 of 34 Appeal No. 51 and 79 of 2013 2003, the jurisdiction of the Central Commission to adjudicate upon has been confined to the matters connected with Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 79(1) of the Act. The matter of dispute in the present case is not connected with Clauses a) to d) of Section 79(1) of the Act and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Central Commission.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 102 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India vs Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd on 23 August, 2007

In Union of India Vs. Tata Tele Services (Maharashtra) Ltd. (2007) 7 SCC 517, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the specialized Tribunal namely TDSAT has been constituted for the purpose of dealing with specialized matters and disputes arising out of Licences granted under the Act and, therefore, there is no reason to restrict the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by keeping out of its purview a persons whose offer has been accepted and whom a Letter of Intent is issued and who had even accepted the Letter of Intent. It was held that any breach or alleged breach of obligation arising after acceptance of the offer made in response to a notice inviting tender would also normally come within the purview of a dispute that is liable to be settled by the specialized Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held Page 27 of 34 Appeal No. 51 and 79 of 2013 that there was no reason to restrict the expressions of licensor or licensee occurring in Section 14(a) (i) of the Act and to exclude a person who had been given a Letter of Intent regarding a telecommunication circle and who had accepted the Letter of Intent. Thus, in this judgment the issue was relating to licence to be given under the Act which was within the jurisdiction of TDSAT. This judgment is not applicable in the present case as it is not a case where the Appellant is providing operation and maintenance services under a licence or under any provision of the Electricity Act. The operation and maintenance services provided by the State utility is by mutual consent and agreement with the inter-State Transmission Licensee as its contractor, which is not required to be regulated and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Central Commission under the Electricity Act, 2003.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 35 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1