Dismissed

M.T.N.L. v. Volkar Stenni

Bombay HC29 Sept 2009S/2732/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order concerns a suit for recovery of unpaid telephone bills. The court held that disputes under the Indian Telegraph Act, Section 7B, are not maintainable in civil suits but must be referred to arbitration. Consequently, the plaintiff was directed to initiate arbitration proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Suit withdrawn; reference to arbitration; plaintiff to approach Central Government for appointing arbitrator within eight weeks.

M.T.N.L. Vs Volkar Stenni — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

SUIT NO. 2732 OF 1994

¶4

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.,
Bombay

¶5

...Plaintiffs

¶6

vs.

¶7

Shri Volkar Stenni...Defendant

¶8

Ms.Jyoti R. Thakkar for the Plaintiffs.
None for the Defendant.

¶9

CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶10

DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2009

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

1Suit is instituted by Mahanagar Telephone

¶13

Nigam Limited for recovery of the amounts due and

¶14

payable by the defendants on account of unpaid
telephone bills.

¶15

2The dispute is in respect of correctness of

¶16

the amount claimed by the plaintiff under the bills

¶17

which are impugned in this suit which dispute is
squarely covered by the provisions of Section 7B of

¶18

¶19

the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Apex Court after
taking into consideration the provisions of Section
7B of the said Act in the case of Telecom District

¶20

Manager, Goa vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. reported in AIR
1996 SC 1545 has observed that in view of the

¶21

amended provision of Section 7B read with Section
7E, the matter should be referred to arbitration. A
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.
135/1990 and 145/1990 has also referred such cases

¶22

to arbitration. In similar other cases also, the
matters have been referred to arbitration.

¶23

3The MTNL, accordingly, therefore, shall

¶24

move the Central Government, expeditiously for the
appointment of arbitrator in view of provisions of
Section 7B of the said Act and judgment of the Apex
Court. Upon appointment of an Arbitrator, the matter

¶25

shall be referred for arbitration in terms of

¶26

Section 7B to the arbitrator. The Central Government
shall issue a notification appointing an arbitrator
within a period of eight weeks from today. The

¶27

¶28

Arbitratorshallconcludethearbitration

¶29

proceedings, expeditiously and in any case, within
six months from the date on which he enters upon the
arbitration or on the date on which the parties are
expected to appear before him. The questions raised
in the suit are kept open.

¶30

4 The suit, accordingly, is withdrawn in

¶31

terms of reference to arbitration. Refund of court

¶32

fees to be paid in accordance with Rules.

M.T.N.L. v. Volkar Stenni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.T.N.L. v. Volkar Stenni

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

Vinay Impex Pvt.Ltd Vs Dynamic India Pvt.Ltd

Vijaya Manohar Sheth and Anr. Vs Pramod Pitamber Sheth and 7 Ors.

National Textile Corpn. Vs Arvind Singh Sethi and Ors.

Motiram Dada Sangamnere and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

mrs. rabia abdul gani Vs s.p. sharma and Anr. and mrs. shanti murgesh nadar and court receiver,high court bombay

Mrs. Savita Satish Jaykar Vs Mrs. Jayashree Madhav Jayakar