{"id":265855,"date":"2022-04-25T11:00:52","date_gmt":"2022-04-25T05:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=265855"},"modified":"2022-04-28T16:58:00","modified_gmt":"2022-04-28T11:28:00","slug":"2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/","title":{"rendered":"2G Spectrum Scam| Supreme Court rejects ex-licensee\u2019s refund demand of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee, holding him faulty as a confederate of fraud"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court:<\/strong> The 3-Judge Bench comprising of <strong>Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud*<\/strong>, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ., affirmed the impugned order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal whereby the Tribunal had dismissed appellant\u2019s claim for refund of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee paid by it for 2G licences. The Bench stated,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong><em>\u201c\u2026as a beneficiary and confederate of fraud, the appellant could not be lent the assistance of this Court for obtaining the refund of the Entry Fee.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The instant appeals were filed under Section 18 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 against the judgments of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). The appellant claimed a refund of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee paid by it for 2G licences for twenty-one service areas.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Noticeably, the Supreme Court by its judgment in <em>Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/3P882cFB\">(2012) 3 SCC 1<\/a> (CPIL), had quashed 2G licences granted by the Union of India, including to the appellant. The Court had declared that the policy of the Union government for allocation of 2G spectrum on a \u2015First Come First Serve\u2016 basis was illegal.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Decision of TDSAT<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As a consequence, the appellant approached the TDSAT to claim refund of its Entry Fee on the principles of civil, contractual and constitutional law which was dismissed by the TDSAT holding that the quashing of the appellant\u2019s licences by the Supreme Court in its judgment in CPIL could not be equated with the Unified Access Service Licences (UASL) agreements becoming void within the meaning of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The appellant then instituted another petition before the TDSAT7 raising the issue of a refund of the Entry Fee, on the ground that it had been exonerated by the Special Judge, CBI for charges under Section 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 in a case relating to the grant of UASLs. However, it met with the same fate as the TDSAT dismissed the second petition noting that the appellant had made a second attempt for claiming the same relief which had been sought earlier in the First Telecom Petition.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Contention of the Appellant <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It was against the impugned judgment of the TDSAT that the appellant had approached the Supreme Court contending that the fraud in the First Come First Serve policy for 2G spectrum allotment existed at the doorstep of the Union government alone and that the appellant was free from taint or wrong doing.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>The CPIL Judgment <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In CPIL, the Supreme Court had held that that the First Come First Serve policy was writ large with arbitrariness, and was intended to favour certain specific entities at a grave detriment to the public exchequer as the then Minister of Communications and Information Technology wanted to favour some companies and that as a matter of fact the entire process was stage-managed to favour those who had access to the nitty-gritties of the policy in advance. The Bench had observed,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong><em>\u201cUndoubtedly, the authors of the <\/em><\/strong><strong><em>\u2015First Come First Serve policy were the official actors comprised within the Union government. But equally, the decision did not exculpate the private business entities who obtained UASLs and became the beneficiaries of their decision. <\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Noticing that the appellant was amongst the four licensees who were directed to pay a cost of Rs 50 lakhs each because they too had been benefited by the wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional exercise undertaken by Department of Telecommunication (DoT) for grant of UASL and allocation of spectrum of 2G band, the Bench opined that the appellant was also complicit in the illegal exercise of obtaining favours by the indulgence of those in power. Thus, the the appellant was held to be <em>in pari delicto <\/em>along with the Union government.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Whether the Entry Fee was Refundable? <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Clause 619 of the UASL Guidelines issued by the DoT required each applicant seeking a UASL for a given service area to deposit a non-refundable entry fee. Accordingly, the appellant paid paid the amount of Rs 1454.94 crores as entry fee and it was only upon the payment of Entry Fee the appellant became eligible to be issued UASLs in the twenty-one service areas. Additionally, Clause 18.121 of the UASL agreement acknowledged the payment of a onetime non-refundable entry fee prior to the signing of the agreement.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thus, the Bench noted that the Entry Fee was a onetime non-refundable fee payable by an applicant for participating in the process of obtaining the UASL and was distinguishable from the licence fee under Clause 10.122, which was relatable to the actual operation of the licence.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Doctrine of frustration and restitution<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The appellant had relied on the provisions of Sections 56 and 65 of the Contract Act to claim benefits of restitution and frustration contending that when a licence is granted under the proviso to Section (4)(1) of the Telegraph Act, the licence is in the nature of a contract between the government and licensee, thus bringing it within the ambit of the Indian Contract Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Bench referred to Graham Virgo\u2019s, \u201c<em>The Principles of Law of Restitution\u201d, <\/em>to observed that all claims for restitution are subject to a defence of illegality. The genesis of which is in the legal maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio (no action can arise from a bad cause). Further, that a court will not assist those who aim to perpetuate illegality.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thus, relying on the principle that when the party claiming restitution is equally or more responsible for the illegality of a contract, they are considered in pari delicto, the Bench held that unless the party claiming restitution participated in the illegal act involuntarily or the rule of law offers them protection against the defendant, they would be held to be in pari delicto and therefore, their claim for restitution will fail. The Bench expressed,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong><em>\u201c<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>If the party claiming restitution was equally or more responsible for the illegality (in comparison to the defendant), there shall be no cause for restitution.\u201d <\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Verdict<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Consequently, the Bench concluded that the appellant was in <em>pari delicto<\/em> with DoT and the then officials of the Union government. Hence, as a beneficiary and confederate of fraud, the appellant could not be lent the assistance of this Court for obtaining the refund of the Entry Fee. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[Loop Telecom &amp; Trading Ltd. v. Union of India, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/FfRiRgqJ\"><b>2022 SCC OnLine SC 260<\/b><\/a>, decided on 03-03-2022]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\">*Judgment by: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud<\/h4>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Appearance by: <\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Appellant: A M Singhvi and Huzefa A Ahmadi, Senior Advocates<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Union of India: Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together\u00a0<\/span><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ., affirmed the impugned order of <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":265877,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[49250,30315,9292,2673,41774,49251,43683,29785,2532,34244,49252],"class_list":["post-265855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-2g-spectrum-scam","tag-arbitrary","tag-contract-act","tag-corruption","tag-doctrine-of-frustration","tag-entry-fee","tag-equity","tag-law","tag-Refund","tag-restitution","tag-telecommunication"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>2G Spectrum Scam| Supreme Court rejects ex-licensee\u2019s refund demand of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee, holding him faulty as a confederate of fraud | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2G Spectrum Scam| Supreme Court rejects ex-licensee\u2019s refund demand of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee, holding him faulty as a confederate of fraud\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ., affirmed the impugned order of\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-04-25T05:30:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-04-28T11:28:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/2G-Spectrum-Scam-Supreme-Court-rejects-ex-licensees-refund-demand-of-Rs-1454.94-crores-Entry-Fee-holding-him-faulty-as-a-confederate-of-fraud.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/\",\"name\":\"2G Spectrum Scam| Supreme Court rejects ex-licensee\u2019s refund demand of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee, holding him faulty as a confederate of fraud | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/2G-Spectrum-Scam-Supreme-Court-rejects-ex-licensees-refund-demand-of-Rs-1454.94-crores-Entry-Fee-holding-him-faulty-as-a-confederate-of-fraud.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-25T05:30:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-04-28T11:28:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/2G-Spectrum-Scam-Supreme-Court-rejects-ex-licensees-refund-demand-of-Rs-1454.94-crores-Entry-Fee-holding-him-faulty-as-a-confederate-of-fraud.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/2G-Spectrum-Scam-Supreme-Court-rejects-ex-licensees-refund-demand-of-Rs-1454.94-crores-Entry-Fee-holding-him-faulty-as-a-confederate-of-fraud.png\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2G Spectrum Scam| Supreme Court rejects ex-licensee\u2019s refund demand of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee, holding him faulty as a confederate of fraud\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2G Spectrum Scam| Supreme Court rejects ex-licensee\u2019s refund demand of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee, holding him faulty as a confederate of fraud | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2G Spectrum Scam| Supreme Court rejects ex-licensee\u2019s refund demand of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee, holding him faulty as a confederate of fraud","og_description":"Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ., affirmed the impugned order of","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-04-25T05:30:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-04-28T11:28:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/2G-Spectrum-Scam-Supreme-Court-rejects-ex-licensees-refund-demand-of-Rs-1454.94-crores-Entry-Fee-holding-him-faulty-as-a-confederate-of-fraud.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/","name":"2G Spectrum Scam| Supreme Court rejects ex-licensee\u2019s refund demand of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee, holding him faulty as a confederate of fraud | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/2G-Spectrum-Scam-Supreme-Court-rejects-ex-licensees-refund-demand-of-Rs-1454.94-crores-Entry-Fee-holding-him-faulty-as-a-confederate-of-fraud.png","datePublished":"2022-04-25T05:30:52+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-28T11:28:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/2G-Spectrum-Scam-Supreme-Court-rejects-ex-licensees-refund-demand-of-Rs-1454.94-crores-Entry-Fee-holding-him-faulty-as-a-confederate-of-fraud.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/2G-Spectrum-Scam-Supreme-Court-rejects-ex-licensees-refund-demand-of-Rs-1454.94-crores-Entry-Fee-holding-him-faulty-as-a-confederate-of-fraud.png","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/25\/2g-spectrum-fraud-refund-entry-fee-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-news-reserach-updates\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2G Spectrum Scam| Supreme Court rejects ex-licensee\u2019s refund demand of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee, holding him faulty as a confederate of fraud"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/2G-Spectrum-Scam-Supreme-Court-rejects-ex-licensees-refund-demand-of-Rs-1454.94-crores-Entry-Fee-holding-him-faulty-as-a-confederate-of-fraud.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":24071,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/10\/29\/claim-of-loop-telecom-ltd-seeking-refund-of-2g-licences-entry-fee-rejected\/","url_meta":{"origin":265855,"position":0},"title":"Claim of Loop Telecom Ltd. seeking refund of 2G licences entry fee, rejected","author":"Sucheta","date":"October 29, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT): A petition filed by Loop Telecom Ltd. seeking a refund of Rs 2,231 crore paid by it as entry fee\/licence fee and interest for the grant of Unified Access Licences in Year 2008, has been rejected by TDSAT on the ground that as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/TDSAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/TDSAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/TDSAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/TDSAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/TDSAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":43091,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/09\/no-undue-favour-done-by-the-government-towards-reliance-jio-by-allowing-it-voice-telephony-at-rs-1658-crores\/","url_meta":{"origin":265855,"position":1},"title":"No undue favour done by the Government towards Reliance Jio by allowing it voice telephony at Rs. 1,658 crores","author":"Sucheta","date":"April 9, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the matter where the decision of the Government of India allowing voice telephony to Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. on payment of Rs.1, 658 crores entry fee was challenged on account of undue favour being given to the respondents, it was alleged that\u00a0 in normal course grant of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6415,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/13\/order-issuing-summons-to-sunil-mittal-and-others-in-2g-scam-case-by-special-judge-cbi-set-aside\/","url_meta":{"origin":265855,"position":2},"title":"Order issuing summons to Sunil Mittal and others in 2G Scam case by Special Judge, CBI, set aside","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 13, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Making a significant development in the 2G Spectrum scam case, while deciding the validity of the order \u00a0of 19.03.2013 passed by the Special Judge, CBI vide which the appellants who were not named in the charge sheet by CBI had been summoned by him, the 3 Judge Bench\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Supreme Court&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":228884,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/04\/30\/some-relief-to-finacially-stressed-vodafone-idea-as-sc-directs-payment-of-rs-733-crores-tax-refund-within-4-weeks\/","url_meta":{"origin":265855,"position":3},"title":"Some relief to finacially stressed Vodafone Idea as SC directs payment of Rs.733 Crores tax refund within 4 weeks","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"April 30, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In some relief to the financially stressed telecom giant Vodafone Idea, the bench of UU Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ has directed a tax refund of Rs.733 Crores to the company within 4 weeks. The Court also directed the Income Tax department to conclude the proceedings initiated pursuant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6410,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/11\/24\/court-directs-cbi-director-ranjit-sinha-to-excuse-himself-from-the-investigation-and-prosecution-of-2g-spectrum-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":265855,"position":4},"title":"Court directs CBI Director Ranjit Sinha to excuse himself from the investigation and prosecution of 2G Spectrum case","author":"Sucheta","date":"November 24, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In an important order that can have major implications upon the future of the investigations of the notorious 2G Scam, the three Judge Bench of H.L. Dattu, C.J., M.B. Lokur and A.K. Sikri, JJ., directed Ranjit Sinha the current Director of Central Bureau of Investigation to not to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Supreme Court&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":376715,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/sc-reserve-price-payable-from-date-of-2g-spectrum-judgment\/","url_meta":{"origin":265855,"position":5},"title":"Telecom Operator liable to pay reserve price for continued operation from date of 2G spectrum judgment: Supreme Court","author":"Ritu","date":"February 25, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cHaving slept over the matter for that length of time, the DoT cannot take advantage of its own lassitude and seek to mulct upon the respondent interest liability for that period.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Telecom operators to pay Reserve price","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Telecom-operators-to-pay-Reserve-price.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Telecom-operators-to-pay-Reserve-price.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Telecom-operators-to-pay-Reserve-price.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Telecom-operators-to-pay-Reserve-price.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=265855"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265855\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/265877"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}