ON TUESDAY [21.12.09] the DELHI HIGH COURT asked the Mobile Phone opertors to ensure that unsolicited commercial calls made by the companies or banks are reduced and eventually ended. The Bench directed operators to follow guidelines laid down by the Telecom Regulatory Authoirty of India [TRAI] on the subject.

The High Court was hearing a petition filed by the Cellular operators Association, which challenged the State Consumer Commission’s order in favour of Nivedita Sharma, a lawyer who had received an unsolicited business call from a bank. The consumer Court had directed the ICICI Bank and AIRTEL to pay Rs. 50,000 compensation to Sharma. The Court is expeced to give its final verdict on JANUARY 8, 2010.

[source: THE EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE, N. DELHI]

OUR COMMENTS:-

1. LET THE ALMIGHTY GIVE THE JUDGES OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT THE COURAGE OF CONVICTION TO COME DOWN HEAVILY ON THE MISCHIEVOUS BANKS LIKE ICICI AND THE CELLULAR PHONE OPERATORS LIKE AIRTEL / AIRCEL WHO ARE BEHIND SUCH UNHEALTHY PRACTICES ADOPTED BY THEM IN THE GUISE OF COMPETITIVE MARKETING STRATEGIES.
2. LET OTHER BANKS LIKE HDFC, ABN AMRO, CITIBANK, AMERICAN EXPRESS etc AND LIKE WISE THE OTHER CELLULAR OPERATORS LIKE RELIANCE, VODAFONE etc. TAKE THIS MATTER SERIOUSLY AND END THEIR UNHEALTHY MARKETING STRATEGIES [Someone is loudly shouting from behind that it is the RELIANCE INFOCOM which cultivated such bad habit in the beginning - may be true]
3. LIKE THE ADVOCATE WHO RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE CONSUMER COURT, LET ALL CELL PHONE USERS GET UNITED AND FIGHT AGAINST THE UNHEALTHY MARKETING PRACTICES ADOPTED BY THE PRIVATE BANKS AND CELL PHONE OPERATORS.
4. LET THIS BE A GOOD LESSON FOR THOSE PRIVATE COMPANIES IN OTHER SECTORS WHO ARE ALSO ADOPTING SUCH UNHEALTHY MARKETING CAMPAIGNS, HARASSING THE CONSUMERS, DAY IN AND DAY OUT.
5. LET TRAI ALSO WAKE UP TO ACT TOUGH WITH THE CELL OPERATORS

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS PRIVATE BANKS, PRIVATE CELL OPERATORS, UNHEALTHY MARKETING PRACTICES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, while deciding on 19.11.09 the writ petition no. 8185 of 2009 in re: TATA MOTORS LTD vs UNION OF INDIA, it was observed as follows:-

QUOTE: We are at pains to understand the approach of the learned Tribunal. Judgements of high Courts considering judicial discipline have to be followed by the Courts subordinate to the high Court. Failure to do so would result in JUDICIAL MAYHEM. Subordinate courts are bound to follow the judgements unless there be a subsequent judgement of a Higher Court which has taken a view different from the view earlier expressed. In this case, we find that the judgement in the case of AMRIT PAPER vs COMMR. OF C.EXCISE, LUDHIANA [2006-200-ELT-365-SC] cannot be said to have decided the controversy of availing Cenvat credit for jobwork. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_om_8185]

HIGH COURT ORDERS

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS HIGHER COURTS, JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, JUDICIAL MAYHEM, SUBORDINATE COURTS