https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272744 Clause 6.4.6 of the Interconnect Agreement, read in the telecom regulatory context, was treated as a rough-and-ready measure to compensate loss caused by unauthorized routing and CLI masking, which distort interconnect usage charges and billing integrity. Because the enhanced charge was limited to the date of provisioning of the POI or the preceding two months, the clause was held to reflect a genuine pre-estimate of reasonable compensation rather than a penal stipulation. It was therefore not in conflict with Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. en-us Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 May 2018 10:17:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272744 Clause 6.4.6 of the Interconnect Agreement, read in the telecom regulatory context, was treated as a rough-and-ready measure to compensate loss caused by unauthorized routing and CLI masking, which distort interconnect usage charges and billing integrity. Because the enhanced charge was limited to the date of provisioning of the POI or the preceding two months, the clause was held to reflect a genuine pre-estimate of reasonable compensation rather than a penal stipulation. It was therefore not in conflict with Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272744