Disposed

M.T.N.L. v. Sippy Films Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Nov 2007S/1295/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay elected to dispose of two cross-suits regarding disputed telephone bills. Relying on Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act and an Apex Court decision, the court held that the dispute must be referred to statutory arbitration.

What did the court decide?

The suits were disposed of by ordering reference of the dispute to arbitration under Section 7B of the Act.

M.T.N.L. Vs Sippy Films Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. — Bombay HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 SUIT NO.1058 OF 1990

¶5

 Sippy Films Pvt.Ltd. ..Plaintiffs.
 V/s.

¶6

 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ..Defendants.

¶7

 WITH

¶8

 SUIT NO.1295 OF 1992

¶9

 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr. ..Plaintiffs.

¶10

 V/s.

¶11

 Sippy Films Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ..Defendants.

¶12

 None for the Plaintiff in Suit No.1058 of 1990 and
 Defendants in Suit No.1295 of 1992.

¶13

 Ms.S.I.Shah for Defendants in Suit No.1058 of 1990
 and for Plaintiffs in Suit No.1295 of 1992.

¶14

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J

¶15

 DATE : NOVEMBER 2, 2007.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

 1. None appears for the Plaintiffs in the former

¶18

 Suit/Defendants(private party) in the later suit.
 Both these suits pertain to claim in respect of
 telephone bills raised by the department-MTNL against
 the private party, in respect of the same telephone
 bills, of which private party is the subscriber. The

¶19

 private party disputed its liability to pay the
 amount as demanded by the MTNL department. Private

¶20

¶21

 party filed the former suit amongst other to issue
 order against the department-MTNL to forebear from
 disconnecting their telephone for non-payment of
 balance outstanding amount towards disputed telephone
 bills.

¶22

 2. The Department-MTNL on the other hand, has
 filed the later suit for recovery of amount against
 the defendant in relation to the self-same telephone
 bills and non-payment thereof by the
 Defendants(private party) by raising disputes in
 relation thereof. The fact remains that Defendants
 in the respective suits have filed Written Statements
 contesting the claim of each other. In that sense,
 dispute has been raised in relation to the telephone
 bills, which is squarely covered by provisions of
 Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphic Act. In such a
 situation, it is imperative to refer the parties to
 arbitration, which is a statutory remedy.

¶23

 3. Taking overall view of the matter and having
 regard to the mandate of Section 7B of the Act, as
 expounded by the Apex Court in the case of Telecom
District Manager, Goa & Ors. vs. V.S.Dempo & Co. &
Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 1545, it is appropriate
 that the matter is referred to arbitration. The

¶24

¶25

 reference to arbitration is for determination of
 disputes under Section 7B of the Act, which is a
 statutory remedy.

¶26

 4. The Central Government shall notify the
 arbitrator before whom the present dispute will be
 tried and decided in arbitration. The
 MTNL-department to intimate competent Authority of
 the Central Government to take immediate steps to
 notify the arbitrator in terms of Section 7B of the
 Act. Such notification shall be issued within eight
 weeks from today.

¶27

 5. The arbitrator so appointed shall conclude
 the arbitration proceedings as expeditiously as
 possible and in any case, not later than six months
 from the date he enters upon arbitration or the
 parties are expected to make first appearances before
 him, whichever is earlier.

¶28

 6. It is made clear that all issues raised in
 the present Suit at the instance of either side shall
 be considered on its own merits in accordance with
 law in the arbitration proceedings.

¶29

 7. In view of the above order, the Suit is

¶30

¶31

 disposed of. Refund as per rules.

¶32

 8. Counsel for the MTNL-department to forthwith
 inform the Counsel for the private party as well as
 the private party about the order passed today.

¶33

(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

M.T.N.L. v. Sippy Films Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.T.N.L. v. Sippy Films Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

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

Ramjit Laxmidas Merchant and Ors. Vs Pravnkumar Jaisinh Ved and Ors.

Canara Bank Vs M/S Shah Engineers and Ors.

Central Bank of India Vs M/S Ramanlal Kishorkumar and Ors.

Ashok Naayuan Pathare Vs Chharya Satyanand Shastri

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd Vs M/S Neon Trading Corpn

M.T.N.L. Vs Pethe Nihon Chemicals Ltd.