IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5423 of 2008 Date of decision:05.03.2009 Surjit Singh ...Petitioner versus Union of India and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Gaganeshwar Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.R.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against the dismissal of an application filed by the defendant for a reference to Arbitration under Section 7 (b) of the Indian Telegraphs Act. The suit had been filed by the Union and BSNL for recovery of some amounts allegedly due from the subscriber for a period from 11.10.1991 to 18.04.2002. 2. The Court below has rejected the contention on an assumption that the entire claim made by the plaintiffs referred to an unrecovered part of an award already passed by an Arbitrator. It is brought to my notice that the recovery is sought between the period 11.10.1991 to 18.04.2002 covered by 15 bills while the previous award passed in favour of the plaintiffs through the arbitrator was only for 7 years. Evidently, the suit contains also a claim with reference to the period which were not covered by the Arbitration Award and by virtue of Section 7(b), the defendant is entitled to seek for an arbitration. Civil Revision No.5423 of 2008 - 2 - The rejection of the application is therefore not tenable and the proceedings before the suit as regards the period where there has been no award already shall be referred to the Arbitrator. In respect of any portion of the suit claimed which is covered by an award, the defendant shall be at liberty to take such objection as it is permissible in law. 3. Subject to this observation, the revision is disposed of. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.03.2009 sanjeev