Section 29 with Sections 30(2)(m) and 37(3)(g)
|
read with Telegraph Act, 1885 (Act No. XIII of 1885) Section - 7 read with
Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (Act No. XVII of 1933) Section - 10(2) read
with National Telecommunication Policy, 1998 read with Contract Act, 1872
(Act No. IX of 1872); Section-23: Whether the 'exclusivity' clause in the
licence agreement was void as it gave the petitioner monopoly in the trade
which is unenforceable being illegal and against public policy.
The Bangladesh Telecommunication Act, 2001 was given effect from 8.7.2001
and hence forth it is the duty and obligation of the Commission to enter
into any licence agreement but in spite of that prior to constitution of
the Commission the parties (MOPT and the World Tel. Bangladesh Limited)
have singed the agreement in hot haste on 12.7.2001 containing terms
including the 'exclusivity' clause at a time when the Act was already in
force, which the learned Consul for the respondent termed to be the result
of coercive mode of procurement in singing of the licence agreement. - the
Commission could amend any license agreement executed by the Government
either under Telegraph Act, 1885 or Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 by
invoking the provisions of section 89 and 90 of the B.T. Act if it
considers that any condition or content in the license agreement is
inconsistent with any provisions of the Act in order to ensure healthy
competitive environment, prohibition of anti-competitive and discriminatory
practices in the telecom sector and to meet the huge unmet demand for
telephone to the tune of 07 millions in the DME area and in the overall
public interest. -as the term regarding 'exclusivity' was contrary to the
aforesaid provisions of law and the spirits and object of the 'National
Telecommunication Policy', the condition in the Agreement is opposed to
public policy and therefore void.
World Tel Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors 20 BLT (AD) 108.
|
World Tel Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors |
20 BLT (AD) 108 |
Section 46
|
Bangladesh Telecommunication Act, 2001
Section 46 r/w
বাংলাদেশ টেলিভিশনের জন্য
টেরিস্ট্রিয়াল টেলিভিশন
সম্প্রচার সুবিধা সংরক্ষন
অধ্যাদেশ, ২০০৬ and
বাংলাদেশ টেলিভিশনের জন্য
টেরিস্ট্রিয়াল টেলিভিশন
সম্প্রচার সুবিধা সংরক্ষন
আইন, ২০০৯
Stop broadcasting activities of Jamuna Television– There is no illegality
in the order dated 19.11.2009 to stop test transmission of the
appellant-company's Television Channel cancelling the allocated satellite
frequency and using of earth station, SNA and DSNA machineries and
equipments and seizing the machineries and equipments under the seizure
list dated 19.11.2009. However, in view of the observations and findings
made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed-in-part in doing complete justice,
the respondents are hereby directed to release the machineries and
equipments seized from the appellant-company’s TV stations as per seizure
list dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure-A2) and to dispose of the appellants’
application dated 08.10.2009 in accordance with law within 1(one) month
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. At this stage the
appellants are not entitled to broadcast or transmit any telecommunication
without having obtained requisite licences and NOC in accordance with law
from the concerned Ministries and authorities. …Jamuna Television Ltd.
=VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 183]
....View Full Judgment
|
Jamuna Television Ltd. =VS= Government of Bangladesh |
8 LM (AD) 183 |
Section 55(3)
|
Value Added Tax Act, 1991
Sections 15(4), 6(4KaKa) r/w
Value Added Tax Rules, 1991
Rule 18(Uma) r/w
The Telegraph Act, 1885
Section 4 r/w
Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Act
Section 55(3) r/w
Regulatory and Licensing Guidelines for Renewal of Cellular Mobile Phone
Operator License (Guidelines, 2011)
The BTRC is given responsibility to collect VAT from the Cellular Mobile
Phone Operators and deposited it to the Government exchequer. As such,
there is no scope to withhold the VAT collected at source by the
Grameenphone.
Government, local authorities, the organization of local authority or
organization those who are working for the Government are exempted from
payment of VAT. The NBR, postal department, Bangladesh Bank, City
Corporation and land revenue authority although engaged in realization of
VAT through deduction at source bearing no registration under VAT Act, 1991
and thus the BTRC being Government organization is also exempted from
payment of VAT under Clause-7 (Ab¨vb¨ †mev)(N) of the second schedule
of the VAT Act, 1991 and compulsory VAT registration is not necessary for
BTRC.
“the BTRC’s contained non-registered status for VAT purposes appears
anomalous in the facts and circumstances. This Court being of the view that
such situation needs immediate attention to avoid any further confusion in
the implementation of the Deduction at Source Scheme in particular. It is
also noted that the BTRC itself on occasion has contributed to such
confusion arising by making ill-advised assertions as to its status within
the VAT regime. This Court finds in this respect that circumstances now
dictate a compulsory registration of the BTRC by application of Section
15(4) of the Act. Both the NBR and the BTRC are hereby put on notice to
ensure such registration by application of Section 15(4) without undue
delay. Given the findings in this judgment it is directed that such
registration shall be deemed to be effective from the date the BTRC
notified the petitioner of award of license and payment of License Renewal
Fee and Spectrum Assignment Fees without any deduction i.e. from
17.10.2011.”
-are hereby expunged. .....Grameenphone Ltd. =VS= Bangladesh
Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 563]
....View Full Judgment
|
Grameenphone Ltd. =VS= Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission |
14 LM (AD) 563 |