1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.609 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1286 OF 1990 Danendra Ahuja ..Plaintiff V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ..Defendant None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicant/defendant WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.610 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.3049 OF 1990 M/s.Sumi Chem Corporation ..Plaintiff V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited & ors ..Defendants None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicants/defendants WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.661 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.225 OF 1990 Bhishmakumar D. Chudawala ..Plaintiff V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ..Defendant None for the plaintiff 2 Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicant/defendant WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.723 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2502 OF 1990 Gopaldas Gupta ..Plaintiff V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited & anr. ..Defendants None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicants/defendants WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.724 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1058 OF 1990 Sippy Films Private Limited ..Plaintiff V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ..Defendant None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicant/defendant WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1024 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1155 OF 1994 Anuj Diamonds ..Plaintiff V/s. 3 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ..Defendant None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicant/defendant WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1034 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.404 OF 1990 N.L.Jhaveri ..Plaintiff V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ..Defendant None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicant/defendant WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1041 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.256 OF 1990 Samarth Knitter Private Limited ..Plaintiff V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ..Defendant None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicant/defendant WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1044 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1256 OF 1994 4 Rashmi Krishnakant Shah ..Plaintiff V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited & ors ..Defendants None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicants/defendants WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1048 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.3681 OF 1990 M/s.Central Automobiles Limited ..Plaintiff V/s. Union of India & anr. ..Defendants Mrs.M.Shah i/b.Pandya Gandhi & Co., Advocate, for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicants/defendants WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1434 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2406 OF 1994 Mehta Roadlines ..Plaintiff V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ..Defendant None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicant/defendant WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1435 OF 2008 IN 5 SUIT NO.2634 OF 1990 Indravadan Himatlal ..Plaintiff V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ..Defendant Mr.Anand Talreja i/b.Mr.A.M.Talreja, Advocate, for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah, Advocate, for the applicant/defendant CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 18TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. . The above Chamber Summons have been filed for condonation of a delay in appointing the arbitrator pursuant to the orders disposing of the said suits. The dispute between the parties i.e.the plaintiff and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited in terms of the Orders disposing of the said suits was referred to the arbitrator as per Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1855. This Court had directed the Central Government to notify the arbitrator within a period of eight weeks from that date. 2. By Order dated 12th May, 2008, it appears that the Central Government appointed the arbitrator but there was an over run of about 5 to 45 days in each of the said suits in notifying the 6 appointment of the arbitrator. As mentioned herein all the above Chamber Summons are for condonation of the said delay. The reasons for the delay in appointing the arbitrator have been mentioned in the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. 3. Considering the reasons cited in the said affidavit in support, in my view, the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, all the above Chamber Summons are made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The above Chamber Summons accordingly stand disposed of. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)