Disposed

Sarju International v. M.T.N.L.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2006S/396/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order addressed a short cause suit regarding a disputed telephone bill. The court held the dispute falls under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885, making it arbitrable. Based on the Defendant's statement to refer the matter to arbitration, the court disposed of the suit, directing the Parties to comply with subsequent arbitral procedures.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed; Defendant directed to move Central Government for appointment of arbitrator under Section 7-B within four weeks.

Sarju International Vs M.T.N.L. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

O. O. C. J.

¶4

SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.396 OF 1990

¶5

Sarju International Vs.

¶6

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

¶7

Mr. Rajendra Mishra for the Plaintiff. Mrs. S.I. Shah for the Defendant.

¶8

CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶9

14^th December, 2006.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Mr. Rajendra Mishra undertakes to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Plaintiff within a period of one week from today. Learned counsel states that he has received instructions on behalf of the Plaintiff.

¶12

The Plaintiff has raised a dispute in respect of the bill dated 21^st June, 1989 issued by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited who are Defendants to the suit. The dispute raised in the suit clearly falls within the purview of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 and can therefore, be determined by

¶13

¶14

arbitration. Counsel appearing for the Defendant has drawn the attention of the Court to orders passed by the Division Bench on 20^th January, 2000 in Writ Petitions 134 of 1990 and 145 of 1990 wherein having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager, Goa v. V.S. Dempo¹ , a statement was made on behalf of MTNL that the dispute be referred to arbitration. A similar statement has been made on behalf of the Defendant in this case to the effect that a reference would be made to arbitration under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. In that view of the matter, this suit can be disposed of in terms of the statement which has been made on behalf of the Defendant.

¶15

On order dated 6^th March, 1990 an ad interim order restraining the Defendant from disconnecting the telephone connection was passed conditional on the Plaintiffs depositing 50% of the amount of the disputed bill by 9^th March, 1990. Subsequently by an order dated 4^th December, 1991 the earlier order was confirmed in view of the deposit having been made by the Plaintiff. The amount which has been deposited by the Plaintiff with the Defendant shall abide by the result of the arbitral

1 AIR 1996 SC 1545.

proceedings.

Under Section 7-B the Arbitrator has to be appointed by the Central Government. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant states that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid terms, the Defendant will move the Central Government for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 within a period of four weeks from today. The suit is accordingly disposed of.

Sarju International v. M.T.N.L.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarju International v. M.T.N.L.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash B. Jadhav Vs Bajaj Electrical Ltd.

Mayaram Zuri Varma Vs the New Great Eastern Spg. Wvg. Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Yogeshwar Raj Vs Air India Ltd. and Anr.

Walwa Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors. Vs Pratibha Pratishthan and Ors.

Sarju International Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd

Keshav and Malonkar and Ors. Vs Rosy Elias Kinny and Ors.