- 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
- AI
- 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
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
TDSAT orders Central govt against using strong-arm tactics to demand Rs.991.5 crore licence fee from Tata Communications
TDSAT orders Central govt against using strong-arm tactics to demand Rs.991.5 crore licence fee from Tata Communications
The next hearing has been scheduled for 13 September
The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed the Central government not to take any coercive steps against Tata Communications regarding the Rs.991.5 crores license fee demands.
A Coram of Justice DN Patel (chairperson) and Subodh Kumar Gupta (member) passed the interim order on a plea filed by Tata Communications challenging the demand by the telecom department’s license fee for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008.
The TDSAT ruled, “In view of the aforesaid annexures, orders, and the judgments by the Supreme Court and the demand dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure p-1), which is for the periods of 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, we hereby direct the respondent not to initiate any coercive steps against this petitioner in pursuance of Annexure p-1 till the next date of hearing.”
The government’s demands encompass a range of services, including international long-distance, internet service, and national long-distance operations.
Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Meet Malhotra along with Advocates Mansoor Ali Shoket, Nitin Kala, Kunal Singh, Ravi SS Chauhan, Tanmay Jain, Palak Singh, and Aman Sharma appeared for Tata Communications.
The Union of India was represented by advocate Chandrashekhar Chakalabbi.