AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 205 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Krishnamoorthy, Advocate who has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1.
Petitioner has denied the assertion of the respondent in notice dated 3.9.2021 (Annexure P-7). According to petitioner, as per accounts contained in Annexure P3, no arrears are due to be paid to respondent no.1. Petitioner has also alleged that respondent no. 1 has disturbed petitioner's system leading to disconnection of 49 LCOs and 3500 subscribers without any good reason.
Mr. Krishnamoorthy may seek instructions on both the aspects but respondent no. 1 is expected to disclose accounts since March 2018 till date so as to enable this Tribunal to find out whether invoiced amount for different month have been regularly paid by the petitioner or not. Whether this petition is maintainable against respondent no. 2 which does not appear to be a service provider under the TRAI Act shall be considered on the next date. Respondent no. 1 should come ready on that aspect also. Respondent no. 1 may file a short reply, if so advised by the next date.
Post the matter under the same head on 4.1.2022.
Till next date no disconnection should be effected it it has not been effected so far.