Disposed

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

Bombay HC2 Nov 2007S/2055/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a brief order where the High Court, finding that the defendant failed to appear and disputed telephone bill amounts, held that the dispute is governed by Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. The court disposed of the suit and referred the matter to arbitration, directing the Central Government to notify an arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of; reference to arbitration made under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885.

M.T.N.L. Vs Pethe Nihon Chemicals Ltd. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 SUIT NO.2055 OF 1992

¶5

 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ..Plaintiffs.

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

 Pethe Nihon Chemicals Ltd. ..Defendants.

¶8

 Mr.H.Engineer i/b. B. Goverdhandas & Fozdar for
 Plaintiffs.

¶9

 None for Defendants.

¶10

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J

¶11

 DATE : NOVEMBER 2, 2007.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

 1. None appears for the Defendants today when

¶14

 the matter is called out. Even on the last date of
 hearing no appearance was made on behalf of the
 Defendants.

¶15

 2. This Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs for
 recovery of amount due and payable by the Defendants
 in relation to different telephone bills. The
 Defendants failed to pay the amount demanded by the
 Plaintiffs, as the Defendants contested the demand
 being excessive one. As the Defendants failed to pay
 the amount, the Plaintiffs have had no option but to
 institute the present Suit for recovery of the amount
 under the suit bills.

¶16

¶17

 3. In the Written Statement filed by the
 Defendants, it is reiterated that they were disputing
 the claim of the Plaintiffs in relation to the suit
 telephone bills. In view of the stand taken on
 behalf of the Defendants, it necessarily follows that
 a dispute has been raised, which is squarely governed
 by provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs
 Act, 1885. In such a case, reference of dispute to
 arbitration under Section 7B of the Act is
 imperative.

¶18

 4. 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
 reference to arbitration is for determination of
 disputes under Section 7B of the Act, which is a
 statutory remedy.

¶19

 5. The Central Government shall notify the
 arbitrator before whom the present dispute will be
 tried and decided in arbitration. The Plaintiffs to
 intimate competent Authority of the Central

¶20

¶21

 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.

¶22

 6. 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.

¶23

 7. 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.

¶24

 8. In view of the above order, the Suit is
 disposed of. Refund as per rules.

¶25

 9. Counsel for the Plaintiffs to forthwith
 inform the Counsel for the Defendants as well as the
 Defendants about the order passed today.

¶26

(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd Vs M/S Neon Trading Corpn