Name: Mayukha Parcha

University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat

Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615

Supreme Court of India

Union of India v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India

Citation: 2019(14)SCALE513
Date of Decision: October 24, 2019
Bench: Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, S. Ravindra Bhat
Appellant: Union of India
Respondent: Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India

Brief history of facts

 1994: The telecom sector was liberalized under the National Telecom Policy, 1994
and various licenses were issued to the companies under Section 4 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885. The licenses granted to the service providers stipulated a fixed
license fee, which was payable by the service providers every year. However, as the
said fixed license fee was very high and the telecom service providers consistently
defaulted in making the payments, the telecom service providers made a
representation to the Government of India for relief against the steep license fee.
 1999: “National Telecom Policy, 1999 Regime” was introduced. This gave an option
to the licensees to migrate from fixed license fee to revenue sharing fee. The
Government decided to take a final decision to charge the quantum of the revenue
share as license fee after obtaining recommendations of the telecom regulatory
authority of India (TRAI). Meanwhile the Government decided to fix 15% of the
gross revenue of the license as a provisional license fee. The new telecom policy 1999
was so designed that the Government would become a partner or sharer of “gross
revenue.” From the money received under the head of “adjusted gross revenue” the
Government decided to spend it on remote and uncovered areas, rural areas, tribal
areas and hilly areas to maximum tele-connectivity. However the telecom service
providers in spite of the financial benefits of the package started to ensure that they do
not pay the license fee to the public exchequer based on even an agreed “AGR.”
 2001: “Draft license agreement” – the telecom service providers were required to
submit the relevant data/revenue earned by them so that the ultimate AGR/license fee
can be determined. In 2001, The association of basic telecom operators submitted
their comments. They said that the licensee should be required to pay license fee only
on that income which he has actually obtained. In view of this, the above mode of
revenue is inequitable. Hence both the income as well as deductible expenses should
be computed on actual basis to arrive at an equitable and fair figure of revenue.
 2003: The department raised the demands on the service providers, in the year 2003
the Association of Basic Telecom Operators and respective telecom operators filed a
petition before the telecom disputes settlement and appellate tribunal, New Delhi. It
was a case of the telecom operators that the department was supposed to determine
the quantum based on the recommendations of the TRAI. The department had
illegally included various elements of income in the definition of the term “AGR”
which do not accrue from the operations under the license.

 2006: The Tribunal held that under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Central
Government can take percentage of the share of gross revenue of a licensee realized
Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615
from activities of the licensee under the license and therefore revenue received by a
licensee from activities beyond license activities would be outside the purview of
Section 4 of the Telegraph Act. It also sought TRAI’s recommendations on the
definition of licensed and non-licensed activities. TRAI subsequently gave its
recommendations defining the items to be included in the AGR for payment of
licensee fee.
 2007: The department of telecommunications challenged in the Supreme Court
TDSAT’s jurisdiction over terms of the telecom licenses that had previously been
accepted unconditionally by licensees. In an order dated January 19, the apex court
dismissed DOT’s appeal and directed it to raise its contentions before TDSAT. On
August 30, TDSAR accepted most of TRAI’s recommendations and passed an order
that would be applicable to those AUSPI members that had moved the TDSAT with
effect from the date when they filed their petitions. AUSPI and the Cellular Operators
Association of India (COAI) filed a review petition urging that the TDSAT order be
made applicable to all members of the two bodies from the date of filing of their
petition. DOT again moved the Supreme Court against the 30 th August TDSAT order.
Even as the DOT appeal was pending before the apex court, some telecos filed
petitions before TDSAT requesting to be included in the tribunal’s August 30th order.
 2011: In October, 2011, the Supreme Court held that the TDSAT did not have
jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the terms and conditions of the license and
also did not have jurisdiction to decide on the issue of interpretation of the definition
of AGR and thus its order was a nullity. The Supreme Court also held that if the wide
definition of AGR included revenue beyond the license activities, then it was open for
the licensees to not undertake activities for which they did not require license and they
could thereby transfer these activities to other persons or firms or company.
 2015: In April, 2015, various TSPs filed petitions at High Courts and TDSAT for the
correct interpretation of the heads of Gross Revenue. This issue was agitated before
the TDSAT where it was held that the term revenue in the license was no different
from its definition in the accounting standard 9. It was noted that gross revenue would
include inflow from all its business activities, whether it was under the license or
beyond the license.
 2019: The 2015 litigation gave rise to this 2019 judgment. The Supreme Court upheld
the interpretation of AGR that was adopted by DOT. It said that TSP had an
obligation to pay license fee in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
license as it was nothing but a contractual obligation and this has to be followed by
TSPs. The TSP’s had accepted the terms and conditions of the Migration Package
voluntarily and unconditionally and this has led to substantial growth of the sector.

Issue: The question involved in the case is with respect to the definition of gross revenue of
the license agreement granted by the Government of India to the telecom service providers.
Definition of Gross Revenue: ‘broad, comprehensive and inclusive’. The court while
responding to the arguments by TSP’s that gross revenue should be interpreted according to
accounting standards, has noted that this is not permissible since a specific definition of gross
revenue has been explicitly stipulated in the license and this cannot be substituted by using
another definition from another source. It said that revisiting this question again, which was
already decided in a previous judgment by the Supreme Court would be barred by res-
judicata. Also, the broad and comprehensive definition of ‘revenue’ has held the rule of
ejusdem generis
 Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615

and should be implemented while construing the heads set out in the definition of gross
revenue and should thereby include revenue generated from activities of TSPs beyond the
license.

Important Arguments from both parties and the judgment of the Supreme Court: A
comprehensive table showing the proposed treatment of different revenue heads for the
purpose of defining Annual Gross Revenue by various stakeholders and the final verdict of
the Apex Court in this case.

Revenue Head Government of India Telecom Service Telecom Disputes Supreme Court
(Ministry of Providers (“TSP”) Settlement (on
Communications, recommendations
Department of of Telecom
Telecommunications Regulatory
) Authority of
India)
(“Tribunal”)
Discounts and To be included To be excluded To be partially To be included.
Commissions included.
Discounts over and The discounts are The tribunal has The definition of
above the agreed not like expenses. dealt with Gross Revenue as
charges are part of the The treatment of discounts and specified in the
overall commercial discount as commissions under License cannot be
strategy to enhance expenditure is 3 heads: (i) diluted in any
business. Hence these contrary to the discounts allowed manner. Since
discounts are like fundamental on international such definition
expenses. As per the principle of roaming; (ii) does not exclude
definition of “gross accounting. commission and discounts,
revenue”, it is not Expenses are discount allowed to commissions
permissible to set off always in the form distributors on sale rebates etc. from
these volume-based of outflow of cash. of pre-paid the computation
discounts against the Discounts are vouchers; (iii) of Gross
revenue as expenses given to customers goodwill waiver, Revenue,
are not permitted to be to get the discount and exclusion of such
netted off, such advantage of the rebates. amounts
amounts form part of much lesser Only discounts (including trade
revenue. Otherwise, amount. The same given on discounts,
the discounts may be induce gross inflow international discounts on
used by the company of cash of a roaming in form international
to reduce its costs and telecom company. volume, credit , roaming
the profitability of the Therefore, netting off in the commission,
company may remain discounts can never profit and loss discounts allowed
unaffected but the be treated as account, discounts to distributors on
gross revenue for the expenditure. given separately sale of prepaid
computation of AGR from the MRP on vouchers and cash
may be reduced. sale of pre-paid discounts) from
 Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615
vouchers, goodwill the computation
waiver, discount of Gross Revenue
and rebates should cannot be sought.
be included in the
definition.
Gain from To be included To be excluded To be excluded To be included
foreign
exchange DoT believes that the The licensees The fluctuations in Gains from
fluctuation mandate of the believe that DOT is the foreign foreign exchange
definition of gross trying to confuse exchange rate have fluctuations form
revenue has been the revenue with nothing to do with part of the actual
ignored. The gain income. The the licensed revenue. Since the
from foreign exchange foreign exchange activities of the definition of
fluctuation is to be fluctuation gain is telecom service. Gross Revenue,
taken into the unrealized gain and Any charges till also includes
calculation of adjusted is purely notional payment is made "any other
gross revenue, the and no flow of are notional miscellaneous
income is understood revenue takes income, which revenue" such
as an increase in place. Additionally, cannot be taken as gains cannot be
economic benefits in notional gains are revenue for AGR excluded from the
the form of inflows not inflows of cash basis. On actual computation of
from the enhancement and do not payment since no Gross Revenue.
of assets or decreases represent revenue. discount is given Thus, there is no
in liability that result When there is and the actual escape from the
in increase in equity. neither accrual nor receipt is less, no conclusion that
The definition of receipt of income, license fee should forex gain has to
income covers both no revenue can be be charged if the be accounted for
revenue and gains. said to have same is more. as part of gross
The gains from resulted. Thus, any gain or revenue. When
foreign exchange loss due to foreign loss can be
fluctuations should be exchange claimed as an
added without any net fluctuations will expenditure,
off against the losses, have no bearing on profit or gain due
and these should be on the license fee. to fluctuations in
accrual basis. the rate of foreign
exchange has also
to be accounted
for towards gross
receipt, which is
gross revenue.
Monetary gains To be included To be excluded To be partially To be included
on sale of shares included
It is submitted on Only gain over and Given the
behalf of the Tata above the gross definition of
Teleservices ltd. book value (cost) Gross Revenue in
and other licenses of the assets that is the License, every
that gains from sale when sale proceeds amount that is
of shares should are more than the more than the
not be included in original purchase book value of
 Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615
the inclusive cost of the assets current assets of
definition of gross should be included. TSPs and which
revenue. The gains comes to TSPs,
on the sale of must be
capital assets and considered for
receipt from the calculation of
sale of scrap. Gross Revenue
For example, sale without netting
of shares is not an off. This would
ordinary business also include any
activity. monetary gains
obtained by TSPs
on sale of capital
assets (such as
shares).
Insurance Claim To be included To be excluded To be partially To be included
in respect of included
capital assets It is submitted that the The amount The TDSAT has
tribunal has erred in received towards held that if the The submission
making the insurance claim is asset destroyed is raised on behalf
classification of the for indemnification replaced of the licensees
revenue. In case the towards loss of immediately and cannot be
insurance claim capital asset to the claim received accepted as the
received is more than compensate for the is more than the insurance claim
the book value, it is to loss. while paying actual cost of over and above
be treated as revenue. for the loss, the replacing the the book value is
the gross inflow of insurance company equipment, the considered as
cash for the current compensates for difference would revenue and not
year, over and above the loss. The be taken as income; the value of the
the book value, is to insurance claim is and in a case where capital asset as
be treated gross not the value of the the asset destroyed there is an inflow
revenue. There is no damage to property is not replaced of cash received.
need to make any but only takes into immediately, the It is accounted for
classification as to consideration the gain to the extent in the profit and
when an asset is amount required to more than the gross loss account. It
destroyed and restore it to its book value is has to form part
replaced later on. original condition. considered as of the gross
income. The asset revenue
has appreciated
over time, then
insurance claim
received more than
the total cost,
though being real
gain, is not treated
as revenue of the
licence agreement.
Amount of To be included To be excluded To be excluded To be included
negative balance
 Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615
of the pre-paid The negative balance The pre-paid For computing
customer is communicated to vouchers are sold The TDSAT has gross revenue,
the customer and also for a price for held that the number of calls at
shown in the account. which the customer negative balance full value have to
It is billed on accrual gets a fixed cannot be taken be measured
basis and becomes duration of talk- into account for without any
part of gross revenue. time/usage of the computation of discounts or
In case it is not service. When it is gross revenue as it incentives
realised, the same has exhausted, and is notional revenue, provided by TSPs
the effect of bad debt, long talk-time is which is neither (including
which is not allowed used, it results in a billed nor received. negative talk
as a deduction as per negative balance. It is not due to the time).
the definition of gross fault of the Consequently,
revenue licensee, and the this revenue head
licensee does not cannot be
gain anything from excluded from
such usage beyond calculation of
the permitted gross revenue.
duration for the
amount received by
it.

Reimbursement To be included To be excluded To be partially To be included

of Infrastructure included
operating The stand of DOT is The licensees have Usage of facility It has been
expenses that the interpretation submitted that like rent has to be specifically
is expressly contrary setting up of included in the mentioned that
to clause 19.1, which passive gross revenue, and there cannot be
categorically includes infrastructure like reimbursement of any setting off of
“revenue from towers is not an spending should the amount of
permissible sharing activity which not be included in gross revenue,
infrastructure”. The requires licence. the gross revenue and the entire
definition of gross The tower structure provided it is money received
revenue does not is sometimes shown separately in has to be treated
permit differentiation erected by the invoice and not as the gross
between the independent parties shown in the profit revenue for the
reimbursement of and is offered to and loss account as determination of
expenses and rent for service providers revenue. The TRAI licence fee. It is
the usage of the on rent. Similar recommended that not the
facility. activity, when renting and leasing determination of
carried out by a of the passive profit. The gross
service provider, infrastructures by revenue carries a
should not be service providers is different
treated as part of a regular telecom definition, and the
licensed activity. activity and should, intendment is
Therefore, the therefore, be part of clear to prevent
revenue earned by AGR. disputes. Thus the
licensee from entire amount
 Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615
rent/leasing out received by the
passive licensee on
infrastructure account of
should not form sharing of passive
part of adjusted infrastructure has
gross revenue. to be counted in
the gross revenue
while working out
AGR. Thus, the
finding to the
contrary recorded
by the TDSAT is
set aside.

Waiver of late To be included To be excluded To be excluded To be included

fee
DOT submits that if Late fee is a The TDSAT in the Late free is
the operator bills the penalty charged by order passed in included
late fee, it would be the licensee in case 2007 held that the explicitly in the
taken as part of gross customer fails to amount of waiver definition of gross
revenue, whether it is pay the bill within of late fee has to be revenue. As such,
realised or not. the due date. excluded from the it has to be
Sometime late fee gross revenue. The computed as part
is waived off by recommendation to of gross revenue.
the licensee as a the contrary made Merely by waiver,
goodwill gesture at to the TRAI was it cannot be
the time of set aside. The ousted from the
payment. The TDSAT in the purview of gross
submission raised impugned order revenue once it
on behalf of the passed in 2015 has becomes leviable.
licensee is that the held that the late Thus, the finding
licence fee should fee is a penalty and of the TDSAT is
be payable on the the penalty that has not sustainable
realised revenue. been waived off, and is set aside.
What has not been cannot be added to
realised, cannot the revenue. In the
form part of first place, penalty
revenue. cannot be said to be
revenue, and if the
penalty which is
waived off, is
added to revenue, it
would be a case of
notional income
being subjected to
charge.

Gains from To be included To be excluded To be included To be excluded

 Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615
roaming charges
and PSTN pass- DOT submits that Many a time it Irrespective of the Deduction of
through charges merely because one happens that the company being the roaming charges
company has a licence licensee to whom same, pass-through and PSTN pass
of more than one such charges to be charges shall be through charges
circle, there will not paid, happens to be allowed to be from gross
be common accounts the same company. deducted as soon as revenue on
of that company. The It is stated officers the same are actually paid
licence fee is realised of the licensees do accounted as basis is
as per the separate not allow revenue under the permissible under
account. In case both deduction of such different license the licence and
the licences are charges on the held by the therefore such
different, accounts are ground that there is company. charges can be
different, accounts are no such actual excluded while
different and payment payment as the computing gross
of licence fee for each company making revenue.
circle is different. as well as receiving However, such
the payment is the charges must be
same. actually passed
over to licensees
in different
services areas for
such deductions
to be permissible.
Non-refundable The claim was not To be excluded To be excluded To be included
deposits pressed by the learned
counsel appearing on It has to be
behalf of DOT before included as per
the tribunal. the format in the
statement of the
gross revenue.
The definition of
gross revenue is
wide enough to
cover non-
refundable
deposits as non-
refundable
deposits are
revenue earned
from licensed
activities. Non-
refundable
deposits are to be
treated as accrued
in the profit and
loss account. It is
apparent that non-
refundable
 Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615
deposits are in
fact revenue
received in
advance from the
subscribers. Even
if they are used
for discount etc.
in the bills, they
form part of
revenue.

License fee in a To be included To be excluded To be excluded To be excluded

circle where the
licensee is not TDSAT has held When the
granted that the demands of spectrum itself
spectrum licence fee based has not been
on other activities, issued, licence
are bad, activity has not
unreasonable, come into play,
invalid, and no revenue is
unsustainable. generated.
Merely on the
Once there is no basis that the
activity under a license has been
licence, merely on issued (with no
the basis that the revenue earned)
licence has been sharing of
issued, no revenue revenue cannot be
earned, it cannot be demanded.
shared. Still, there
is no activity under
the licence, i.e.,
based on non-
licensed activities,
the revenue sharing
could not have
been asked. It
would be an
unreasonable and
unconscionable
bargain to pass on
such a liability.

Income from To be included To be excluded To be excluded To be included

Interest and
Dividend The tribunal Since these items
accepted the are expressly
recommendation of included in the
 Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615
TRAI that income definition of gross
from dividend even revenue in clause
though part of the 19.1. There is no
revenue does not scope to entertain
represent revenue the submission
from licensed concerning the
activity and, exclusion of
therefore, cannot be interest and
included in the dividend from
adjusted gross gross revenue.
revenue. Interest Whatever, interest
earned on and dividend
investment of earned from the
savings made by a licensing and
licensee after non-licensing
meeting all activities, have to
liabilities including form part of gross
liability on account revenue for
of the share of the determination of
Government in the licence fee.
gross revenue
cannot be included
in the adjusted
gross revenue, but
interest on
investment of funds
received by a
licensee by way of
deposits from
customers on
account of security
against charges and
on account of
concessions given
in the charges
payable for using
the telecom
services have to be
included in the
adjusted gross
revenue as these
are related to
telecom service,
which is part of the
licensed activity.
Bad debts To be included To be excluded To be excluded To be included
written off
Any bad debt The TDSAT in the Bad debts written
written of is impugned order, off by TSP cannot
 Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615
recovered finally, it has observed as be deducted
may not be charged under: during the
to license fee again “Licensees submit computation of
as that would result that if a bad debt, gross revenue.
in double charging that is written off is However, such
of license fee on later on recovered, debts if are
the same revenue. it is required to be recovered
reported to the subsequently they
DoT, this, cannot be brought
according to the to charge for a
licensees, that bad second time for
debts written off computing license
may be allowed as fee.
deductions from
revenue but as and
when those are
recovered
subsequently those
should be added on
to revenue.
Liability written No objection raised on To be excluded To be excluded To be excluded
off behalf of DOT Notional revenue The TDSAT has It is to be treated
cannot be included observed as under: as an expense,
in the revenue of and discount
the company based “Take the example cannot be allowed
on provisional of a company that for determining
liability being makes a provision the licence fee.
finalised by actual for retirement
liability. The benefits for the TDSAT has
amount kept as amount. For rightly held that if
provisional liability income tax, it will it is to be
cannot be treated as be considered as an considered as an
income. expense, but no expenditure,
discount from liability has to be
income will be treated as an
allowed for the sum expense, and no
for determining the discount on the
license fee. If such income will be
a liability is written allowed for the
off on a future date sum for
and shown determining the
accordingly in the licence fee. It
profit and loss cannot be charged
statement it surely for the second
cannot be brought time for
to charge for a computation of
second time for licence fee.
computing licence
fee.”
 Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615

Interest from To be included To be excluded To be included To be included

inter-corporate
loan It is submitted on The TDSAT has income from
behalf of licensees included the interest is to be
that as the holding income from included in the
company only interest on inter- gross revenue.
performs the corporate loan as Thus, the
function for the part of gross submission is
subsidiary revenue. baseless. By the
company and the fact that the
interest amount is holding company
only gives loan to the
reimbursement of subsidiary
the amount paid to company and
the bank, it cannot recovers interest
be included in the from subsidiaries,
gross revenue. As is good enough to
such, it does not make it a part of
form part of gross gross revenue.
revenue. Thus, interest
income from
inter-corporate
loan has to be
included in the
gross revenue for
working out the
licence fee.

Revenue under To be included To be excluded No opinions To be included

IP-I registration expressed
Under the
definition of gross
revenue, income
from licensed
activities, non-
licensed activities
and other
miscellaneous
revenue has to be
included in the
computation of
gross revenue.
Consequently,
income of TSPs
from IP
registration under
the closed users
group (CUG)
 Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615
license is required
to be included in
such computation.
Income from To be included To be excluded To be included To be included
management
consultancy The revenue from Income from
services Cable Landing management
Station has to be support and
included in the consultancy
gross revenue. services provided
by a licensee
cannot be
excluded from the
computation of
gross revenue.
Further, income
from cable
landing stations
operated by TSPs
is also required to
be included in
gross revenue.

Present Status of the Judgment: Supreme Court order on 14th February, 2020

The Supreme Court on 14th February, 2020 has come down hard on telecom operators and the
Government for not honoring the deadline that it had set for the companies to pay up the
adjusted gross revenue that is due to the government.

The telecos in question moved the Apex Court, hoping for some relief in terms of a staggered
pay out of the amount that was due. But what they got instead of relief, were possible threats
of contempt proceedings being launched by the highest court of the country against these
companies. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, expressed their anguish as
to why despite the judgment being given out on 23 rd October, 2019 and despite the deadline
being set as 23rd January, 2020 and despite the review petition being dismissed, there has not
been a single penny that has come forth. The Supreme Court commented on the conduct of
these companies and stated that the companies should have atleast come forth and made some
form of a token payment before coming to the Apex Court and seeking for relief. It ordered
that in the next hearing, the M.D and the directors of the companies will have to be present in
Court and will have to show the Court as to why it shouldn’t initiate contempt proceedings.

But that’s not all, the Supreme Court went a step further and questioned the authority of the
DOT order which had stayed any coercive action against the telecos on the recovery
proceedings. The bench observed that there seems to be no rule of law that was followed and
that there seems to be a money power in play and a hand-in-glove movement between the
telecos and the DOT. This Supreme Court Order has huge consequences on the telecom
operators as well as the department of telecommunications.
Name: Mayukha Parcha
University: O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Course and Year: 5th year, B.B.A-LL.B
Contact: mayukhaparcha12@gmail.com | +91-9849650615
The future of telecommunication companies

The recent Supreme court order means that the telecos will have to immediately clear the
pending AGR dues. Some of the companies also face the prospect of shutting down business
due to the trouble they would undergo for not paying the AGR dues on time. The AGR issue
has triggered panic in the telecommunications sector and has far-reaching ramifications on
the sector. As a next course of action, the next hearing is scheduled to be on 16 th of March
and it would be a key day in deciding the fate of companies.