J N SETH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 17-2-1990 passed by the Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1990 refusing to grant temporary injunction against the recovery of the telephone bills of the appellant.

(2.) IN this case, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the application of the appellant for appointment of an arbitrator is not maintainable because the dispute is not covered under Section 7-B of the INdian Telegraph Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) ACCORDING to the appellant, from the date of the installation of the telephone No. 28888, no bills of this telephone were ever issued to him. The bills issued on other telephones were duly paid. On 5-2-1990, the appellant received a bill of Rs. 1,16,298/- on his telephone No. 28888, which was allotted to him in his capacity as a member of the M.P.T.A.C. A covering letter signed by the respondent No. 2 was sent threatening that if this bill is not paid by 15-2-1990, all his telephones will be disconnected. The appellant further submitted that for the first time in August, 1988, a bill on this telephone was issued for Rs. 8,808 / -. The bill was absolutely wrong and, therefore, a protest was made and the respondents were called upon to appoint an arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Act for resolving the dispute. Instead of resolving the dispute by appointing an arbitrator, the respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned bill for Rs.1, 16,298/- along with a threat of disconnection of all other telephones in the event of non-payment. Finding no response, and apprehending imminent threat of disconnection of all the telephones, the appellant filed a petition under Sections 8, 22 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act praying the lower Court for appointment of an arbitrator and quashing the recovery. The application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was also moved by the appellant on 14-2-1990. Learned counsel for the respondents had disputed the submissions of the appellant and sup- ported the order of the trial Court.