Case Note & Summary
The suit was filed by the plaintiff, M/s. Mehta Roadlines, against the defendant, M.T.N.L., challenging a demand bill for telephone charges deemed excessive. The court noted that the dispute fell under the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which mandates arbitration for such disputes. The counsel for the plaintiff did not dispute this position. The court referred the matter to arbitration, emphasizing that the Central Government must appoint an arbitrator within eight weeks. It also directed that the arbitration proceedings should conclude within six months from the arbitrator's appointment. The interim arrangements ordered by the court were to remain in effect until the arbitration proceedings were resolved. The court disposed of the suit in these terms, ensuring that all issues raised would be considered on their merits during arbitration.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Reference to Arbitration - Statutory Requirement - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 7B - The court determined that the dispute regarding excessive telephone charges was covered by Section 7B, necessitating arbitration. The court held that the reference to arbitration is imperative as per the statutory mandate, directing the Central Government to appoint an arbitrator within eight weeks (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dispute regarding excessive telephone charges should be referred to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
Final Decision
The court referred the dispute to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, directing the Central Government to appoint an arbitrator within eight weeks and to conclude the proceedings within six months.
Law Points
- arbitration
- statutory remedy
- excessive charges
- Indian Telegraph Act
- 1885
- Section 7B
