USHA INDIA LIMITED Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Office has made a mistake in giving I.A.No.999/94 as well as Suit No.251/94 . to the application filed under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Only suit number was liable to be given and not I.A.number. So, this I.A.n umber should be treated as cancelled. Office to makenecessary corrections ip the registers.

(2.) I have heard the arguments for deciding the two applications by which the petitioner has sought relief of temporary injunction in respect of the telephone bills raised by the respondent pertaining to telehone No.608527. The main petition has been filed for appointment of an arbitrator for deciding the IAs.6460, 999-1000/94 in S. No.251/94 disputes arising between the parties with regard to the two bills raised by the respondent. I may mention that at first the provisional bill was raised claiming a sum of Rs.l8,33,042.00 in respect of the said telephone and the petition was filed seeking reference of said disputed bill for decision by an arbitrator and the temporary injunction was sought restraining the respondent from disconnecting the telephone of the petitioner for non-payment of the amount of the said bill.

(3.) 'During the pendency of these proceedings an additional bill had been raised claiming total amount of Rs.40,18,296.00 . The petitioner had been already allowed to amend the petition to raise the dispute in respect of this bill.