Allowed

Daryai Lal v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Mar 2014CWP/3486/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Writ Petition, the Court modified an arbitrator's award regarding a disputed telephone bill by allowing the petitioner to treat the amount already deposited as sufficient payment for the disputed month, considering his normal billing history.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed with a direction that the petitioner's deposit of `6,363/- is treated as sufficient payment for March 1994, and the award passed by the DGM/Arbitrator is modified.

Daryai Lal Vs Union of India and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 3486 of 2001

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 3486 of 2001 Date of Decision:March 24, 2014

¶5

Daryai Lal ............................................ Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India and others ................... Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶9

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present: None.

¶12

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 16.12.1999 (Annexure P6) passed by respondent No.3.

¶14

The dispute arose between the parties on account of Bill dated 1.3.1994 for `39,936/- of 28930 calls. The dispute was relegated to an Arbitrator where both the parties filed their written statements. The stand taken by respondent No.2 was that the excessive calls were due to the use of STD/ISD facility which was made available during the aforesaid period on the telephone of the working at the Kaur Rupinderpremises of the petitioner. 2014.03.28 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

C.W.P. No. 3486 of 2001 [ 2 ]

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that after the installation of the telephone the maximum bill for two months had been of 2,000/-. The bill in dispute i.e. bill dated 1.3.1994 (Annexure P1) against the said telephone was 39,936/- for 28930 calls without any details. The applicant had made a request for providing a print out of the call details which was not supplied by the respondents. The applicant was directed to deposit 6363/- and thereafter agreed to make the inquiry. Without making an inquiry, respondent No.2 directed the applicant to deposit the balance amount of 33,600/-. The Arbitrator taking into account the calling pattern, state of record and written statement gave a rebate of 10000 calls on the bill dated 1.3.1994 for `39,936/-.

¶17

The petitioner made an appeal against this award which was dismissed on 20.11.2000 (Annexure P7) as no objections had been made. The objections filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) were dismissed as not maintainable in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in 1996(1) ACJ 312.

¶18

After going through the award passed by the Arbitrator, it transpires that the Arbitrator had accepted the factual position that the petitioner had been getting an average bill of `2,000/- for two months prior to March 1994. The petitioner, as per the directions of the respondents, had

¶19

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.28 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

C.W.P. No. 3486 of 2001

¶21

[ 3 ]

¶22

deposited `6363/-.

¶23

Keeping in view that the average bill was 2,000/for two months, this petition is being allowed with a direction that the payment of 6363/- made by the petitioner will be treated to be sufficient for use of telephone in the month of March 1994.

¶24

The award dated 16.12.1999 passed by the DGM/Arbitrator, Jalandhar (Annexure P6) is modified to the above extent.

¶25

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶26

24.3.2014 rupi

¶27

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.28 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Daryai Lal v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daryai Lal v. Union of India and Others

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

Parveen Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Ganpati Rice Mills Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Binder Singh @ Gora Vs State of Punjab

D.P. Angrish and Anr. Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Khanna and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs M/S Bajjan Wala Cold Store Mamdot and Anr.