The High Court single judge referred this petition to report. It held that the petitioner's deposit was sufficient and directed modifying the Arbitrator's award.
The Arbitrator's award dated 25.10.1991 was modified to hold the petitioner's deposited amount sufficient.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No. 16345 of 1992 [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 16345 of 1992 Date of Decision:Feb. 20,2014
Shree Durga Seeds, Chandigarh ................. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ................... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
Present: Mr. Barjesh Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner/s.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for UOI.
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
Challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 25.10.1991 (Annexure P1).
There is a dispute concerning telephone No. 40186 which was installed in the Shree Durga Seeds, Plot No.116, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. Their new Telephone Number is 534685. The case of the petitioner is that on this telephone number he had been receiving a bi-monthly telephone bill ranging from 2000/- to 3000/-. Finally, bill of
Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.28 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
C.W.P. No. 16345 of 1992 [ 2 ]
23,022/- was received for the period ending 15.10.1988 vide bill dated 1.11.1988 which was challenged before the Civil Court and subject to deposit of 5,000/- the respondents were restrained from disconnecting the telephone line. Thereafter, as per the orders of the Civil Court an Arbitrator was appointed and as per the Award of the Arbitrator dated 25.10.1991 (Annexure P1) a rebate of 6500 calls was allowed for the period from 16.8.1988 to 15.10.1988. This petition was admitted on 9.9.1993.
Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision dated 14.12.2012 in C.W.P. No. 18635 of 1991 (Mrs. Indumati Johri v. Union of India and others) whereby a Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances had reduced the bill to 50% by applying equitable principles.
In the present case the total bill received by the petitioner was for 23,022/- as against the bi-monthly bill of 2000/- to 3000/-. The petitioner had deposited 5,000/- as per the orders of the Civil Court and the respondents were restrained from disconnecting his telephone connection.
After reducing 5,000/- and also the rebate of 6500 calls, an amount of 16,000/- is still due to the respondent department. Compared to the average bill of 2000/- to 3000/- the amount of `16,000/- is on the higher side.
After giving rebate of 6500/- calls, this Court is of
Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.28 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
C.W.P. No. 16345 of 1992 [ 3 ]
the view that `5,000/- deposited by the petitioner shall be sufficient and no further liability shall be fastened on the petitioner. The Award of the Arbitrator dated 25.10.1991 (Annexure P1) is modified to the above extent.
The writ petition is disposed of.
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE 20.2.2014 rupi
Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.28 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the balance amount after deducting the security deposit and the awarded rebate.
Whether the Arbitrator's award modifying the telephone bill needs to be further modified by the court.
Whether the deposited security amount is sufficient to settle the petitioner's dues.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrs. Indumati Johri v. Union of India and othersReferred¶18
C.W.P. No. 18635 of 1991 (Mrs. Indumati Johri v. Union of India and others)
Shree Durga Seeds
Union of India
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
