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. 1126 of 1989 No. 1126 of 1989 No. 1126 of 1989. A.R. Anvekar ..Plaintiff. Vs. M.T.N.L. ..Defendant. Mr S. K. Jain, Advocate for the plaintiff. Ms S.I. Shah i/b S. J. Shah & Co. for the Defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.3296 of 1989 No.3296 of 1989 No.3296 of 1989 M/s Inland Carriers Bombay. ..Plaintiff. Vs. M.T.N.L. ..Defendant. None for the plaintiff. Ms Deepika Mundra i/b Vimadalal & Co. for the plaintiff. Ms S.I. Shah i/b S. I. Shah & Co. for the Defendant. ALONGWITH ( 2 ) SUIT SUIT SUIT No.3333 of 1989 No.3333 of 1989 No.3333 of 1989 Joginder Pal Singh Arora ..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.3350 of 1989 No.3350 of 1989 No.3350 of 1989 Virbhadursinghji s/o Krishnakumar ..Plaintiff. Vs. M. T. N. L. ..Defendant. None present for the plaintiff. Ms S.I. Shah, Advocate for the Defendant. ALONGWITH SUIT SUIT SUIT No.3688 of 1989 No.3688 of 1989 No.3688 of 1989 MRS PUSHPA SANTOSH BAGLA ..Plaintiff. Vs. M.T.N.L. ..Defendant. None for the 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: 6. 02. 2008. 6. 02. 2008. 6. 02. 2008. ( 3 ) 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. 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 ) 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 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 ( 5 ) 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)