Disposed

Bhaskar Sitaram Joshi v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Nov 2006WP/2254/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, applying Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, directed the Union of India to appoint an arbitrator within eight weeks to resolve a dispute over alleged excess telephone billing involving the petitioner and MTNL.

What did the court decide?

Union of India directed to appoint an arbitrator within eight weeks to resolve the dispute over alleged excess billing.

Bhaskar Sitaram Joshi Vs Union of India and Anr. — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 .[1].

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.2254 OF 1994

¶4

 Bhaskar Sitaram Joshi ...Petitioner.

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶7

 Mr.B.S.Joshi, petitioner-in-person present.
 Mr.Y.R.Mishra with Mr.N.D.Sharma, Advocate for
 Respondent No.1-Union of India.

¶8

 CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
 SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶9

 DATED : NOVEMBER 13, 2006.

¶10

 P.C.:

¶11

 . Heard Mr.B.S.Joshi petitioner-in-person and
 Mr.Y.R.Mishra the learned counsel for Respondent
 No.1-Union of India.

¶12

 2. The issue involved in the above petition is
 with regard to excess telephone billing as alleged
 by the petitioner. The petitioner who is present
 in-person states that there is a Suit filed by the
 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., against the
 petitioner being Suit No.3687 of 1995 in this
 Court. Having regard to the facts and
 circumstances of the case and in view of the

¶13

 .[2].

¶14

 provisions of Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph
 Act, 1885, the Central Government has to appoint
 an Arbitrator for the purposes of resolving the
 above matter.

¶15

 3. Mr.Mishra the learned counsel for

¶16

 Respondent No.1-Union of India states that within
 a period of eight weeks from today the respondent
 No.1-Union of India will appoint an Arbitrator in
 the above matter to resolve the dispute with
 regard to the alleged excess billing. The learned
 Arbitrator while deciding the said dispute shall
 take into consideration the case of petitioner and
 Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 including the claim in the
 aforesaid Suit, as expeditiously as possible
 preferably within a period of four months
 thereafter.

¶17

 4. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶18

 [DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.]

¶19

 .[3].

¶20

 [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Bhaskar Sitaram Joshi v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Sitaram Joshi v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajanan S.Jathar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Padmashri v.Kadam Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mumbai Shramik Sangh L Vs the Rashtriya Chemicals andFERTILIZERS Ltd.and Ors.

Raj Narayan J.Triguynayat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ram Pyare Ramsukh Dubey Vs State of Maha.and Ors.

Commodore H.C.Sharma(Rtd) Vs Union of India and Ors.