Bombay High Court
S/1038/1998 of THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD Vs MADHU GUPTA and ANR. on 17 December 2003
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Suit No.1038 of 1995.
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Suit No.1038 of 1995.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd ..Plaintiff
versus
Joone T. Zakiuddin ..Defendant.
Ms.S.J.Shah i/b. Usha Nair for the Plaintiff Coram : V.C.Daga, J.
Coram : V.C.Daga, J.
Coram : V.C.Daga, J.
Dated : 1st February, 2008
Dated : 1st February, 2008
Dated : 1st February, 2008
P.C.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the
plaintiff-M.T.N.L. None appears for the defendant.
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff-M.T.N.L. for recovery of amount due and payable by the defendant under different telephone bills. The defendants failed to pay the amount so demanded by the plaintiff as per the said telephone bills, as the defendant contested the demand being excessive one. As the defendant has failed to pay the amount, the plaintiff had no option but to institute the present suit for recovery of the amount under the suit bills.
3. In view of the mandate of Section 7-B of the
Act as expounded by the Apex Court in the case of Telecom District Manager, Goa & Ors. Vs. S.C.
Telecom District Manager, Goa & Ors. Vs. S.C.
Telecom District Manager, Goa & Ors. Vs. S.C.
Dempo & Co. and Ors. reported in A.I.R.1996 S.C.
Dempo & Co. and Ors. reported in A.I.R.1996 S.C.
Dempo & Co. and Ors. reported in A.I.R.1996 S.C.1545, it is appropriate that the matter is referred 1545, it is appropriate that the matter is referred 1545, to arbitration. The reference to arbitration is for determination of dispute under Section 7-B of the Act, which is a statutory remedy.
4. The Central Government shall notify the arbitrator before whom the present dispute will be tried and decided in arbitration. The plaintiffs to intimate competent authority of the Central Government to take immediate steps to notify the arbitrator in terms of section 7B of the Act. Such notification shall be issued within eight weeks from today.
5. The Arbitrator so appointed shall conclude the arbitration proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than six months from the date he enters upon arbitration or the parties are expected to make first appearance before him, whichever is earlier.
6. It is made clear that all issues raised in the present suit at the instance of either side shall be considered on merits in accordance with law in the arbitration proceedings.
7. Suit is disposed of in the above terms.
Refund as per rules.
8. The learned counsel for the
plaintiff-M.T.N.L. assures that intimation will be given to the advocate for the defendant as well as the defendant forthwith about the order passed today in this suit.
(V.C.Daga, J.)
(V.C.Daga, J.)