IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.1218 OF 1992 M/s.Salehbhai Gulamhusein & Brothers & Anr. ...Plaintiffs Versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants ...... Mr.Rashed Khan i/b Zaidy & Co. for Plaintiffs. Ms.S.I.Shah for Defendants. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 28, 2008. JANUARY 28, 2008. JANUARY 28, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs challenging the demand bill in respect of telephone charges claimed by the Defendants (MTNL) being excessive one. The dispute as raised is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. That position : 2 : is not disputed by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs. In fact, in one of the relief claimed in the Plaint, in particular, clause (d) it is prayed that the dispute be referred to the Arbitrator in terms of Section 7B of the Act. In such a case, reference of dispute to arbitration under Section 7B of the Act is imperative. 3. A priori, in view of the mandate of Section 7B of the Act, as expounded by the Apex Court in the case of Telecom District Manager, Goa Telecom District Manager, Goa Telecom District Manager, Goa & Ors. vs. V.S.Dempo & Co. & Ors. reported in & Ors. vs. V.S.Dempo & Co. & Ors. reported in & Ors. vs. V.S.Dempo & Co. & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 1545 AIR 1996 SC 1545 AIR 1996 SC 1545, it is appropriate that the matter is referred to arbitration. The reference to arbitration is for determination of disputes under Section 7B of the Act, which is a statutory remedy. 4. The Central Government shall take steps to notify the Arbitrator before whom the present dispute will be tried and decided in arbitration. The Defendant (MTNL) 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 : 3 : 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 appearances before him, whichever is earlier. 6. The interim arrangement already ordered by this Court shall continue till the disposal of the arbitration proceedings or till the same is modified or varied by the Arbitrator, if and when such occasion arises. 7. It is made clear that all issues raised in the present Suit at the instance of either side shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law in the arbitration proceedings. 8. In view of the above order, the Suit is disposed of. Refund as per rules. : 4 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. 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.2346 OF 1989 M/s. Egel Pvt. Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Nahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ..Defendant. Mr.S.D.Wasulkar i/by Mr.R.M.Parekh for the plaintiff. Ms. S.I. Shah for the Defendant. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 25th October, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the demand bill in respect of telephone charges claimed by the defendant (MTNL) being excessive one. The dispute so raised is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885. That position is not disputed by the counsel :5: for the plaintiff. In such a case, reference of dispute to arbitration under Section 7B of the Act is imperative. 3. A priori, in view of the mandate of Section 7B of the Act, as expounded by the Apex Court in the case of Telecom District Manager Goa and ors.Vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. and ors. reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1545, it is appropriate that the dispute raised in the present suit is referred to Arbitration. The reference to arbitration is for determination of dispute under Section 7B of the Act, which is a statutory remedy. 4. The defendant No.1-Central Government shall take steps to notify the Arbitrator who in turn will try and decide the arbitration proceeding in terms of Section 7B of the Act. That be done within eight weeks from today. 5. The defendant-M.T.N.L. shall apprise the Central Government for taking expeditious steps in the matter so that the Arbitrator is appointed within eight weeks from today. 6. It is further observed that the Arbitrator so :6: appointed by the Central Government shall conclude the arbitration proceeding within six months from the date when he enters upon arbitration or the date on which the respective parties are expected to make first appearance before him, whichever is earlier. 7. The interim arrangement already ordered by this court shall continue till the disposal of the arbitration proceeding or till the same is modified or varied by the Arbitrator, if and when such occasion arises. 8. It is made clear that all issues raised in the present suit at the instance of either party shall be considered on merits in accordance with law in the arbitration proceedings. 9. Suit is disposed of in the above terms. Refund as per rules. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)