Partly allowed

M.T.N.L. v. Ommitall Indus. Ltd.

Bombay HC14 Oct 2009S/2735/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a suit for recovery of unpaid telephone bills. The court held that such disputes fall under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, mandating reference to arbitration as per Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the suit was allowed to be withdrawn pending arbitration.

What did the court decide?

Suit allowed to be withdrawn in terms of reference to arbitration; entitlement to refund of court fees.

M.T.N.L. Vs Ommitall Indus. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

SUIT NO. 2735 OF 1994

¶4

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Bombay

¶5

...Plaintiff

¶6

vs.

¶7

Omnitel Industries Ltd....Defendant

¶8

Mrs.Jyoti R. Thakkar for the Plaintiff.
None for the Defendant.

¶9

CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶10

DATED : OCTOBER 14, 2009

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

1Heard Counsel for the plaintiff. None for

¶13

the Defendant.

¶14

2Suit is instituted by Mahanagar Telephone

¶15

Nigam Limited for recovery of the amounts due and

¶16

payable by the defendant on account of unpaid

¶17

telephone bills.

¶18

¶19

3The dispute is in respect of correctness of

¶20

the amount claimed by the plaintiff under the bills
which are impugned in this suit which dispute is
squarely covered by the provisions of Section 7B of
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

¶21

Manager, Goa vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. reported in AIR
1996 SC 1545 has observed that in view of the
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
to arbitration. In similar other cases also, the
matters have been referred to arbitration.

¶22

4The MTNL, accordingly, therefore, shall

¶23

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

¶24

¶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

¶27

within a period of eight weeks from today. The
Arbitratorshallconcludethearbitration
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.

¶28

5 The suit, accordingly, is allowed to be

¶29

withdrawn in terms of reference to arbitration. The
plaintiff is entitled for refund of court fees in
accordance with Rules.

M.T.N.L. v. Ommitall Indus. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.T.N.L. v. Ommitall Indus. 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

Ajay Anant Ghag Vs the State Ofmaharashtra

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs Dynamatic Hydraulics Ltd.

Eastern Cargo Carrier (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ras Cargo and 2 Ors.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd. Vs Shri Sardar Machhi Singh and Anr.

The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs M/S.Orson Electronic Indu

M.T.N.L. Vs Omnital Industries Ltd.