M/S. Sudhir Gensets Ltd vs Union Of India & Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 4471 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 11952/2009

       M/S SUDHIR GENSETS LTD.                         ..... Petitioner
                       Through                Mr. Anurag Kumar Agarwal, Adv.

                       versus

        UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                         ..... Respondent
                        Through               Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC.
                                              Mr. Ravi Sikri, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
           ORDER

% 04.11.2009

The respondent, MTNL had raised telephone bills in respect of telephone Nos.

681131 and 6812941 as per the details given below:-

     "Telephone No.                   Bill dated                     Amount

       6811311                        9.6.2000                       138524+2000
                                      9.7.2000                       119558+2000
       6812941                        9.6.2000                       271506+2000
                                      9.7.2000                       125398+2000"

2. The petitioner by his letter dated 5th July, 2000, disputed the bill dated 9th June,

2000 for Rs. 1,31,677/- in respect of telephone No.6811311. The petitioner did not

dispute the other three bills including the two bills of telephone No. 6812941.

3. The respondent, MTNL had examined the complaint made by the petitioner and

by their letter dated 30th July, 2000, informed the petitioner that no fault was observed in

respect of the functioning of the said telephone and the petitioner was directed to make

payment of the said bill.

4. Thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioner to make payment of the bills. The

petitioner wrote letter dated 23rd May, 2000, stating that they wanted to settle the matter

and pay the telephone bills. Subsequently, by the letter dated 11th June, 2000, they agreed

to make payment of the bill amounts in installments of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The

WPC NO.11952/2009 Page 1 petitioner deposited some of the installments amounting to Rs. 2, 06000/-. The last

payment was made on 4th January, 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner stopped depositing

further payments and when the respondent, MTNL took steps to disconnect other

telephones belonging to the petitioner or their officers, the petitioner invoked arbitration

proceedings.

5. Learned arbitrator in the impugned order dated 15.7.2009 has examined the

contentions raised by the petitioner and the documents on record, specially, the conduct

of the petitioner. Learned Arbitrator has referred to the letter dated 5th July, 2000 and has

observed that the objection was only with respect to one telephone number and one bill

and no complaints were made in respect of the other three bills. As noticed above, the

petitioner had himself agreed to make payment of bills raised, in installments of Rs.

25,000/- per month in the year 2000. After making payment of Rs. 2,06,000/- till Jan,

2003, the petitioner stopped making further payment and then suddenly turned around

and raised a dispute. The bills in question are substantial. The petitioner normally would

have immediately contested and disputed the bills in case they had not used the telephone

and if there was misuse. The petitioner after a feeble protest agreed to make payments

and even made some payments. On merits, I do not see any reason to interfere with the

impugned award. The writ court while exercising its power of judicial review under

Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian is not concerned with the merits of the award but

the decision making process. Admittedly, the impugned award has been made by the

arbitrator after hearing the parties and considering the material and evidence on record.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator erred in holding that

the Limitation Act does not apply to the claims made by the respondent, MTNL. This

WPC NO.11952/2009 Page 2 may not be the correct reading of the award. In the present case, the petitioner had

invoked the arbitration clause after they had already made part payment of the disputed

bills till 4th January, 2003. The petitioner disputed the claim of the respondent MTNL and

on their petition matter was referred for arbitration. In these circumstances, I am not

inclined to entertain the second contention raised by the petitioner.

The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       NOVEMBER 04, 2009
       NA




WPC NO.11952/2009                                                                  Page 3