Allowed

C.A. Galiakotwala and Co. Ltd. v. M.T.N.L.

Bombay HC16 Nov 2006WP/814/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging excess billing by M.T.N.L., the High Court held that under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Central Government is obligated to appoint an Arbitrator. The Court directed the Union of India to appoint an Arbitrator within eight weeks and outlined procedures for the ensuing arbitration.

What did the court decide?

Direct Order to the Union of India to appoint an Arbitrator within eight weeks and stipulate a four-month timeline for the arbitrator to decide the dispute.

C.A. Galiakotwala and Co. Ltd. Vs M.T.N.L. — Bombay HC (2006) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

 WRIT PETITION NO.814 OF 1990

¶3

 M/s.C.A.Galiakotwala & Co.Ltd.& Anr. .. Petitioners
 V/s

¶4

 M.T.N.L. & Anr. .. Respondents

¶5

 Mr.V.T.Bhagat for the Petitioners.
 Mr.P.N.Sutar i/by Mr.S.I.Shah for the Respondents.

¶6

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

¶7

 DATE : 16th November, 2006.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this
 petition, the Petitioners are challenging the excess
 billing of Respondents-M.T.N.L. Having regard to the
 provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act,
 1885, it is the obligation of the Central Government to
 appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute with regard
 to the excess billing.

¶10

 2. In that aspect of the matter, we direct the Union of
 India to appoint an Arbitrator within a period of eight
 weeks from today.

¶11

 3. Thereupon, the learned Arbitrator shall afford an
 opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioners and
 allow them to tender the necessary documents and record,
 and thereafter decide the said dispute as expeditiously
 as possible, preferrably within a period of four months
 from the date of his appointment as an Arbitrator.

¶12

 4. The learned Arbitrator while deciding the said
 dispute shall take into account the substantial payment
 which has already been made by the Petitioner.

¶13

 5. Rule is accordingly made absolute.

¶14

 6. Issuance of certified copy is expedited.

¶15

 7. The learned Counsel for the Respondents to

¶16

 communicate this order to the Central Government

¶17

 forthwith.

¶18

 (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)

C.A. Galiakotwala and Co. Ltd. v. M.T.N.L.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.A. Galiakotwala and Co. Ltd. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hotel and Restaurant Assoc.and Ors. Vs Airport Authority of India and Ors.

Suvarna Processors Vs Mun.Corpn.of Greater Bombay and Ors.

M and N.Publication Ltd. Vs the Trustees of the Port at Bombay

Prakash v.Jhaveri Vs State of Mah.and Ors.

Dr.Sonali N.Jukar Vs B.M.C.and Anr.

Gopal R.Potdar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.