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. 406 of 1991 No. 406 of 1991 No. 406 of 1991 Dr. Mario L. Andrack. .. Plaintiff. Vs. M.T.N.L. .. Defendant. None for the plaintiff. Ms S.I. Shah i/b S. J. Shah & Co. for the Defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.1803 of 1991 No.1803 of 1991 No.1803 of 1991 Dr Kannangar R. Shetty. ..Plaintiff. Vs. M.T.N.L. ..Defendant. None for the plaintiff. Ms S. I. Shah i/b S. I. Shah & Co. Advocate for the defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.2154 of 1991 No.2154 of 1991 No.2154 of 1991 R.C.H.Barar & Ors. ..Plaintiff. Vs. M.T.N.L. ..Defendant. None for the plaintiff. Ms S.I. Shah i/b S. I. Shah & Co. for the Defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.1512 of 1991 No.1512 of 1991 No.1512 of 1991 ( 2 ) Malidevi Shankar Kandol Agarwal ..Plaintiff. Vs. M.T.N.L. ..Defendant. None for the plaintiff. Ms S.I. Shah i/b S. I. Shah & Co. for the Defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.942 of 1991 No.942 of 1991 No.942 of 1991 Narayan Prasad Jajodia ..Plaintiff. Vs. M. T. N. L. ..Defendant. Ms I. J. Kotadia Advocate i/b. V. H. Kotadia, for the plaintiff. Ms S.I. Shah i/b S. I. Shah & Co. for the Defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.2551 of 1991 No.2551 of 1991 No.2551 of 1991 GEM TRADERS ..Plaintiff. Vs. M.T.N.L. ..Defendant. Mr H. V. Chande, Advocate for the Plaintiff. Ms S. I. Shah i/b S. I. Shah & Co. for the Defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.581 of 1991 No.581 of 1991 No.581 of 1991 M/s Kores (India) Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Vs. M.T.N.L. ..Defendant. None for the Plaintiff. ( 3 ) Ms S.I. Shah i/b S. I. Shah & Co. for the Defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.2365 of 1991 No.2365 of 1991 No.2365 of 1991 M/s Q.S.S. Colour Processors Pvt Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Vs. M. T. N.L. ..Defendant. Ms K. G. Poojary i/b G. S. Manaswalla, Advocate for plaintiff. Ms S.I. Shah i/b S. I. Shah & Co. for the Defendant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. V. C. DAGA, J. V. C. DAGA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 31. 01. 2008. 31. 01. 2008. 31. 01. 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the plaint. 2. The present suits have been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the demand bills in respect of telephone charges claimed by the M.T.N.L.-defendant being excessive one. The dispute so raised, in all the suits, is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In such cases, reference of dispute to arbitration under section 7-B of the Act is imperative. ( 4 ) 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 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 dispute raised in the present suit 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. 4. The Central Government shall notify the arbitrator before whom the present dispute will be tried and decided in arbitration. The defendant-M.T.N.L. to intimate competent Authority of the Central Government to take immediate steps to notify the arbitrator in terms of Section 7-B 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 apperances before him, whichever is earlier. 6. It is made clear that all issues raised in ( 5 ) the present suits at the instance of either side shall be considered on merits in accordance with law in the arbitration proceedings. 7. 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. 8. All Suits are disposed of in the above terms. Refund as per rules. 9. The learned counsel for the defendant- M.T.N.L. assures that intimation will be given forthwith to the Advocate for all the plaintiffs, as well as the plaintiffs in suits in which plaintiffs’ counsel are absent about the order passed today in the suit. (V.C. (V.C. (V.C. DAGA,J) DAGA,J) DAGA,J)