<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (8) TMI 1608 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458935</link>
    <description>A telecom licence treated as a concluded contract under the Telegraph Act may permit the licensor to enforce broad revenue-sharing terms, including revenue from non-telecom activities, where the migration package and adjusted gross revenue definition were accepted by the licensees. The High Court&#039;s writ jurisdiction was not barred by the availability of a statutory remedy before the Tribunal, because the challenge raised questions on the validity and scope of the levy and multiplicity of proceedings was a relevant concern. The Court also upheld the One Time Spectrum Charge and sustained merger-related conditions, holding that licence modification powers could extend to public-interest terms within the contractual framework.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:15:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1608 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458935</link>
      <description>A telecom licence treated as a concluded contract under the Telegraph Act may permit the licensor to enforce broad revenue-sharing terms, including revenue from non-telecom activities, where the migration package and adjusted gross revenue definition were accepted by the licensees. The High Court&#039;s writ jurisdiction was not barred by the availability of a statutory remedy before the Tribunal, because the challenge raised questions on the validity and scope of the levy and multiplicity of proceedings was a relevant concern. The Court also upheld the One Time Spectrum Charge and sustained merger-related conditions, holding that licence modification powers could extend to public-interest terms within the contractual framework.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>