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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 1987 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 1987 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 1987 OF 1989 Suketu C. Desai. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. Santosh Singh i/b. Gabriel Pillai for the plaintiff. Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 2062 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2062 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2062 OF 1989 Indo Textiles & Fibres Ltd. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. Ms.A.S.Nitare i/b. M.G.Mimani for the plaintiff. Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 2120 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2120 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2120 OF 1989 Bhagwanti Exports Pvt.Ltd. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 2577 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2577 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2577 OF 1989 M/s.Machdrive Engineering. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 2689 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2689 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2689 OF 1989 Rajendra Maganbhai Jhaveri. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 2769 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2769 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2769 OF 1989 Mrs.Mrudula P. Mehta. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. Santosh Singh i/b. Gabriel Pillai for the plaintiff. Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 2880 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2880 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 2880 OF 1989 Vilas J. Shah. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. Sachin Satpute i/b. Satpute & Co. for the plaintiff. Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 3370 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 3370 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 3370 OF 1989 Grey’s Exim. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 3939 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 3939 OF 1989 SUIT NO. 3939 OF 1989 T.R.Krishnan. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 247 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 247 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 247 OF 1990 M/s.Mansons Auto International. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. Santosh Singh i/b. Gabriel Pillai for the plaintiff. Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 256 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 256 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 256 OF 1990 Samarth Khitter Pvt.Ltd. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. Santosh Singh i/b. Gabriel Pillai for the plaintiff. Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 404 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 404 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 404 OF 1990 N.L.Jhaveri. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. Santosh Singh i/b. Gabriel Pillai for the plaintiff. Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 485 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 485 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 485 OF 1990 M/s.Indo Burma Trading Corporation. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. Santosh Singh i/b. Gabriel Pillai for the plaintiff. Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 574 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 574 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 574 OF 1990 Krishnanand S. Kamat. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 760 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 760 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 760 OF 1990 Mrs.Hira M. Kapoor. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 998 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 998 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 998 OF 1990 Purshottram W. Kukreja. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 1227 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 1227 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 1227 OF 1990 Navinchandra D. Doshi. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 2634 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 2634 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 2634 OF 1990 Indravadar Himatlal. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. A.M.Talreja for the plaintiff. Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 3381 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 3381 OF 1990 SUIT NO. 3381 OF 1990 Mrs.Phooldevi N. Chhoraria. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. WITH SUIT NO. 126 OF 1991 SUIT NO. 126 OF 1991 SUIT NO. 126 OF 1991 Rashmikant Popatlal Parekh. ... Plaintiff. V/s. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Defendant. None for the plaintiff Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah & Co. for defendant. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 30th January 2008. DATED: 30th January 2008. DATED: 30th January 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. . Perused plaint. 2. The present suits have been filed by the plaintiffs challenging demand of bills in respect of telephone charges claimed by the defendant- Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. being excessive one. The dispute so raised in all the suits, is clearly covered by the provision of section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act ("Act" for short) 3. Having regard to the mandate of section 7B of the Act, as expounded by the Apex Court in the case of Telecom District Manager, Goa & Ors. v. V.S.Dempo & Telecom District Manager, Goa & Ors. v. V.S.Dempo & Telecom District Manager, Goa & Ors. v. V.S.Dempo & Co. & Ors Co. & Ors Co. & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 1545, it is appropriate that all the matters are 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 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. 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, following principles of natural justice. 6. It is made clear that all the issues raised in 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 the 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 plaintiff assures that intimation will be given to the plaintiffs, as well as the defendant forthwith about the order passed today in these suits. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)