- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court disposes off Paytm plea The Court directs TRAI to implement Regulations on unsolicited commercial communication and take action in accordance with law The Delhi High Court directed the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) that with respect to the Telecommunication Commercial Communication Customer Preference Regulations, 2018, strict compliance must be...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Delhi High Court disposes off Paytm plea
The Court directs TRAI to implement Regulations on unsolicited commercial communication and take action in accordance with law
The Delhi High Court directed the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) that with respect to the Telecommunication Commercial Communication Customer Preference Regulations, 2018, strict compliance must be followed, while hearing the case of One97 Communication vs. Union of India.
The two judges' bench Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh ordered, "We direct Respondent TRAI to ensure complete and strict compliance of the Telecommunication Commercial Communication Customer Preference Regulations, 2018 and other related regulations to curb unsolicited communications...We expect from TRAI that the Regulations shall be implemented and strict action shall be taken in accordance with the law...".
Paytm, One97's flagship brand, is India's largest digital goods and mobile commerce platform - inspired and driven by a commitment to the great consumer experience. Paytm is also a leading payment solutions provider to E-commerce merchants through its RBI approved semi-closed wallet. One97 delivers mobile content and commerce services to millions of mobile consumers through India's most widely deployed telecom applications cloud platform currently headquartered in New Delhi.
One97 Communication and Paytm (petitioner) had approached the High Court in 2020 for implementation of the Customer Preference Regulations. It was reported that they had alleged loss of brand value and reputation due to 'phishing' activities over various mobile networks, in violation of the Regulations.
The Regulations aim at restricting the problem of unsolicited commercial communication and phishing through mandatory registration for telemarketers for themselves.
In view of TRAI taking action against entities committing default under the Regulations, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave submitted before the High Court on 3 February 2021 that the petition may be disposed of with a direction to the regulator to continue implementing the law.
Among other prayers mentioned the petition, including the prayer for Rs 100 crore damages from various telecom companies, were not taken up at the present stage.
"Continue your efforts and take action in accordance with law..." the Court remarked during the hearing of the matter.