MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Vs. MEENU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, with the assistance of the counsel for the respondent, this Court has gone through the record.The-opposite party was provided a telephone by the petitioner-MTNL. The opposite party had not paid certain dues in respect of the said telephone connection.However, a telephone belonging to the partner of the respondent was sought to be disconnected in terms of Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules.

(2.) Opposite Party filed a suit for perpetual injunction. Petitioner relying and on the basis of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, raised a contention before the learned court below that the suit was not maintainable. The said contention of the petitioner was rejected. Hence this Revision Petition.

(3.) Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act reads thus: "Arbitration of disputes - 7B(i) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, cable chamber tower, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, cable chamber tower appliance or apparatus is, or .has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed to the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of dispute under this Section."