1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.3781 OF 1992 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.& Anr. ..Plaintiffs. V/s. Shri Mulchand Karubhai Shah. ..Defendant. Ms.S.I.Shah for Plaintiffs. Mr.Manish Kenia i/b. Vinod Mistry for Defendant. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : NOVEMBER 2, 2007. DATE : NOVEMBER 2, 2007. DATE : NOVEMBER 2, 2007. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. The present suit has been filed by the MTNL for recovery of telephone charges demanded under nine separate bills from time to time from the Defendant. As the Defendant refused to pay the said demand bills, present suit has been filed for recovery of the amount under the said telephone bills raised by the Plaintiff-MTNL. 2. The Defendant after service has entered appearance and filed Written Statement. In the Written Statement amongst others, the Defendant asserts that he is not the subscriber of the subject telephone No.265343, which is subsequently changed to No. 2615343. On that assertion, the defendant is 2 disputing his liability to pay any amount to the Plaintiffs under the suit bills. 3. The case of the Plaintiffs however, is that the Defendant is the subscriber of the subject telephone. Further, the subject telephone line was provided for the benefits of the Defendant. Counsel for the Plaintiffs has relied on the telephone bills raised in the name of the Defendant. In addition, the Plaintiffs rely on the stand taken by the Defendant in his own letter sent to the General Manager dated 13th April, 1989, which according to the Plaintiffs reinforces the position that the Defendant was the subscriber of the said telephone. Going through the stand taken in the Written Statement, it is obvious that the Defendant has raised dispute regarding the liability to pay any amount in relation to the suit telephone bills. Such dispute is squarely covered by provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphic Act. If it is so, it is imperative to make reference of such disputes to the arbitrator, which is a statutory remedy. 4. Counsel for the Defendant fairly submits that since it is a remedy of statutory arbitration, the Defendant is willing to submit to the said 3 proceedings instead of prosecuting the present Suit. However, the Defendant be permitted to raise all contentions available including that the suit claim had become barred by limitation. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Needless to observe that all questions raised in the present Suit at the instance of either side will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law in the arbitration proceedings. 4 8. In view of the above order, the Suit is disposed of. Refund as per rules. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)