Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Section 100 , The Limitation Act, 1963  - Article 112

Telecom Regulatory Act of India, 1997, Section 18 - Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Limitation - Statutory appeal under Section 18 of the TRAI Act would lie only on a substantial question of law - Finding based on proper interpretation of undisputed facts and the relevant clauses of the interconnect agreement and relevant clauses of the Schedule in the Limitation Act - Same cannot be re-agitated by the appellant Company by framing the substantial questions of law.

The Limitation Act, 1963  - Article 112 , The Transfer of Property Act, 1872  - Section 3 , Section 130

Actionable Claim - Limitation - Article 112 of the Act, 1963 makes abundantly clear, that a suit can be instituted by or on behalf of the Central Government - It is not the case of the appellant herein that it has filed the suit on behalf of the Central Government -Appellant-company has instituted the suit on the basis of the instrument of Office Memorandum wherein the DoT has transferred its assets and actionable claims - It cannot be said that it has filed the suit on behalf of the Central Government because the appellant/plaintiff is a company, a distinctly independent and separate entity - Reliance placed upon the Article 112 of the Limitation Act to claim that there would be thirty years of limitation period as the asset transferred is an actionable claim due to the DoT is wholly misconceived in law hence repelled.

The Limitation Act, 1963  - Article 112

General Clauses Act, 1882 - Section 3(8) - Limitation - Central Government - Plea behalf of the appellant-company that it is an agency or instrumentality under the Central Government which falls within the inclusive definition as defined under Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act repelled - Article 112 of the Limitation Act speaks of the Central Government or the State Government - Its agencies or instrumentalities are not entitled to maintain the suit claims within thirty years as provided under Article 112 of the Schedule in the Limitation Act or alternatively, whatever the limitation period which was available for the Central Government, within three years from the date of execution of the agreement are wholly unsustainable in law.

Topic(s)-Limitation - Instrumentality of State - Suit barred by limitation