Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Decided on : Sep-12-2012
..... no complaint in writing has been made. 26. the petitioner in support of its case has examined mr. harish reddy, who as noticed heretobefore, has been making correspondences with mr. parveer gaur of the respondent. in his deposition, the said witness stated :- 5. as the respondent was not making payments in terms of the ..... witness10,25,00,000/-ratio/comparative value5.75 cr x 100=56.09% 10.25 crratio of values as given by petitioners witness gwalior, allahabad, lucknow saharanpur, palampur0.75 cr x 56 ..... that it was so. 42. in a situation of this nature, the burden of proof being on the petitioner in terms of sections 101 and 102 of the indian evidence act, there cannot be any doubt or dispute that it was obligatory on its part to bring on record the channel placement mapping. 43 ..... bhopal and jaipur4.67 l x 1 =4,67,000/-total pro-rata adjustment in terms of invoices of the petitioner59,51,000correctness of the said chart is not in issue. 45. a purported admission made by an employee without adequately verifying the record may or may not be conclusive; it would depend ..... the pro-rata amount in respect of some locations, the channels of the respondent having not been placed in the proper frequency. in this regard, a chart has been submitted by mr. bhagat which reads as under:- pro-rata calculation agreement value5,75,00,000/-total value of breakup as per petitioner .....Tag this Judgment!