Dismissed

Kriztle Bath v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited

Kerala HC11 Dec 2015WP(C)/36481/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the dispute over a mobile bill and recovery proceedings is referable to arbitration under the Indian Telegraph Act. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent to refer the dispute to arbitration and staying recovery proceedings upon deposit.

What did the court decide?

Dispute referred to arbitration per Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act; recovery proceedings stayed pending arbitration upon deposit of Rs.15,000.

Kriztle Bath Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 36481 of 2015 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KRIZTLE BATH & WELLNESS PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M.K.ANSARI KRIZTLE GALLERY, P.T.USHA ROAD, KOCHI-682011.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.H.HAMZA ROWTHER SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, KOCHI-682016.

¶11

THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, BSNL, BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, KOCHI-682016.

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶13

DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

R1 & 2 BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY, SC, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL

¶15

R3 & 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI R.RANJITH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 36481 of 2015 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE BILL/INVOICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.

¶21

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶22

P3 : TRUE COPIES OF THE REQUESTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DGM (GR)

¶24

P5 : TRUE COPIES OF THE LETTERS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND SUBSEQUENT REMINDER.

¶25

P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE AGM UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM.

¶27

P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶28

P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL/REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶31

EXT.R1(A):	COPY OF LET	TER DT.10.6.14.
EXT.R1(B):	COPY OF LET	TER 27.5.14.
EXT.R1(C):	COPY OF LET	TER 16.4.14.
EXT.R1(D):	COPY OF LET	TER 28.2.14.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

dsn

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J

¶36

--------------------------------------------------

¶37

W.P.(C.)No.36481 Of 2015

¶38

-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner who is having a mobile connection with data usage facility provided by the BSNL has approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 bill, Ext.P8 requisition for revenue recovery and Ext.P10 demand notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, by which he was asked to remit a sum of Rs.50,025/-.

¶41

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit justifying the demand made in Ext.P1, to which the petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit.

¶42

I heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

¶43

The sole issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to the legality or otherwise of Ext.P1 demand made by respondents 1 and 2 and the consequential recovery proceedings

¶44

W.P.(C).No.36481/15 -2-

¶45

initiated against the petitioner based on Exts.P8 and P10.

¶46

The specific stand taken by the 1^st respondent in the

¶47

counter affidavit is that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.

¶48

Since the dispute, which is the subject matter in this Writ Petition can be referred to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions.

¶49

(i) Within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the 1^st respondent shall refer the dispute relating to Ext.P1 demand for arbitration in terms of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act;

¶50

(ii) On the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.15,000/within a period of one week from today, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P8 and P10 shall be kept in abeyance, till the completion of the arbitration proceedings; and

¶51

(iii) the arbitrator appointed in terms of the order passed

¶52

W.P.(C).No.36481/15

¶53

-3-

¶54

by the 1^st respondent shall pass an award after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard, within an outer limit of four months from today.

¶55

Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶56

dsn

¶57

True copy

¶58

P.S.to Judge

Kriztle Bath v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kriztle Bath v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.M. Varghese Vs the Chief Election Commissioner

Viju Associates Vs the Union of India

M/S. Madras Cements Ltd. Vs Union of India

Rosamma Abraham Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kottayam

Raju.R Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

M/S. Rajasree Motors (P) Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Inspector