IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. SUIT SUIT SUIT No.3756 of 1989 No.3756 of 1989 No.3756 of 1989 M.T.N.L. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Rajesh Nagindas Sangnee ..Defendant. Ms S.I. Shah i/b Asha Nair, Advocate for the Plaintiff. None for the defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.3757 of 1989 No.3757 of 1989 No.3757 of 1989 M. T. N.L. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Mrs Mohini C. Mansukhani ..Defendant. Ms S.I. Shah i/b Asha Nair for the Plaintiff. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.709 of 199 No.709 of 199 No.709 of 1990 M. T. N.L. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Gurudev Singh ..Defendant. Ms S.I. Shah i/b Asha Nair for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.2522 of 199 No.2522 of 199 No.2522 of 1990 ( 2 ) M. T. N.L. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Mrs Sushila A. Daga ..Defendant. Ms S. I. Shah, Advocate for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.3048 of 199 No.3048 of 199 No.3048 of 1990 M. T. N.L. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Shri B. Suryaprakash ..Defendant. Ms S. I. Shah, Advocate for the Plaintiff. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. V. C. DAGA, J. V. C. DAGA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 06. 02. 2008. 06. 02. 2008. 06. 02. 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the plaint. 3. The present suits have been filed by the plaintiff-M.T.N.L. for recovery of amount due and payable by the defendants under different telephone bills. The defendants failed to pay the amount so demanded by the plaintiff as per the said telephone bills, as the defendants contested the demand being excessive one. As the ( 3 ) defendants have failed to pay the amount, the plaintiff had no option but to institute the present suits for recovery of the amount under the suit bills. 4. 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 and Ors vs. Telecom District Manager, Goa and Ors vs. Telecom District Manager, Goa and Ors vs. V.S. V.S. V.S. Dempo & Co. and Ors, A.I.R.1996 S.C. Dempo & Co. and Ors, A.I.R.1996 S.C. Dempo & Co. and Ors, A.I.R.1996 S.C. 1545, 1545, 1545, it is appropriate that the matter is referred to arbitration. The reference to arbitration is for determination of dispute under Section 7-B of the Act, which is a statutory remedy. 5. The Central Government shall notify the arbitrator before whom the present disputes will be tried and decided in arbitration. The plaintiff 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. 6. The Arbitrator so appointed shall conclude the arbitration proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than six ( 4 ) months from the date he enters upon arbitration or the parties are expected to make first apperances before him, whichever is earlier. 7. It is made clear that all issues raised in the present suits at the instance of either side shall be considered on merits in accordance with law in the arbitration proceedings. 8. Needless to mention that Arbitrator would also be entitled to adjudicate upon counter-claim, if any. The parties shall also be at liberty to file their rival pleadings if already not filed. 9. All Suits are disposed of in the above terms. Refund as per rules. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff assures that intimation will be given to the Advocate for all the defendants, as well as the defendants forthwith about the order passed today in this suit. (V.C. (V.C. (V.C. DAGA,J) DAGA,J) DAGA,J)