Disposed

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd v. Shri Shivnarayan Punam- Chand Porwal

Bombay HC30 Jan 2008S/2255/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of telephone bills. The Court held that disputes under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act must be referred to arbitration and dismissed the suit, directing the parties to proceed before the arbitrator to be notified by the Central Government.

What did the court decide?

The suit is disposed of. The Plaintiff is directed to get the Central Government to notify an arbitrator within eight weeks to determine the dispute under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd Vs Shri Shivnarayan… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

MST

¶3

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

¶4

 SUIT NO.2255 OF 1993

¶5

 The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Plaintiff

¶6

 versus

¶7

 Shivnarayan Punamchand Porwal Defendant

¶8

 Mr.Viral D. Shukla i/by Shukla & Shukla for
 plaintiff.

¶9

 Rupali Sanglikar i/by M.P.Rege & Co. for
 defendant.

¶10

 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶11

 DATE : 30th January 2008

¶12

 PC :-

¶13

 1. This Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for
 recovery of amount due and payable by the
 Defendant under three different telephone bills
 in relation to telephone No.652336. According to
 the Plaintiff, the Defendant is the subscriber of
 telephone No.652336.

¶14

 2. The Defendant has filed written statement and
 has maintained his stand by disputing the claim

¶15

 of the Plaintiff being excessive one. In that

¶16

 ((-2-))

¶17

MST

¶18

 sense, dispute has been raised with regard to the
 correctness of the amount claimed under the suit
 bills, which dispute is squarely covered by
 Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act. In such
 a case, reference of dispute to arbitration under
 Section 7B of the Act is imperative.

¶19

 3. 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, the matter deserves to be referred to
 arbitration. The reference to arbitration is for
 determination of disputes under Section 7B of the
 Act, which is a statutory remedy.

¶20

 4. Counsel for the Defendant fairly submits that
 since it is a remedy of statutory arbitration,
 the Defendant is willing to submit to the said
 proceedings instead of prosecuting the present
 Suit. However, the Defendant be permitted to
 raise all contentions available including that
 the suit claim had become barred by limitation.

¶21

 5. The Central Government shall notify the
 arbitrator before whom the present dispute will
 be tried and decided in arbitration. The

¶22

 ((-3-))

¶23

MST

¶24

 Plaintiff 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.

¶25

 6. The arbitrator so appointed shall conclude

¶26

 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.

¶27

 7. Needless to observe that all questions raised
 in the present Suit at the instance of either
 side will have to be decided on its own merits in
 accordance with law in the arbitration
 proceedings.

¶28

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

¶29

 (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd v. Shri Shivnarayan Punam- Chand Porwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd v. Shri Shivnarayan Punam- Chand Porwal

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

Sudarshan Khaitan Vs Official Liquidator High Court, Bombay (Liquidator to Kanakdhara Steel Ltd. in Liqun.

Mahanagar Telephone Niagmltd Vs Shri Pankaj Mulji Kapadia

Mrs Asha Bacubhai Agarwal Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd and Anr.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd and Anr. Vs Haji Ebrahim Salemohmed

The Mahanagar Telephone Niagam Ltd. Vs Shri a H Gopani

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd and Anr. Vs Mr Raj Lekhraj Nairyani