Reasoned award . Conclusion based on evidence . Interference not called for {Union of India vs. S.J.Pandit. AIR 1997 Ker 153. Ag.C.J.K.Sreedharan & C.S.Rajan (J)]
Rival claims to a telephone.
Matter cannot be referred to arbitration – [Ittyarah
v. Simon. 1991(1) KLT 175 = 1991(2) KLJ 270. M.M.Pareed Pillai (J)]
Appointment of arbitrtor - Department personnel can be appointed . Mere official or policy bias will not disqualify an official from acting as an adjudicator. Direction to official of Department for not acting as arbitrator cannot be given. [A.Raghvan vs. Union of India. AIR 1999 Ker 40. K.S.Radhakrishnan (J)]
Dispute regarding telephone bill can be decided by arbitrator appointed by the Government of India. Appointed of arbitrator by the Telephone Nigam Ltd is void abnitio. [ M/s. Fly wings Travels (P) Ltd. vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd and another. AIR 1995 Del 71]
The moment the correctness of
telephone is challenged on the ground of mal-functioning or misuser of the
lines, surely a dispute concerning the telegraph line, apparatus or appliance
within the meaning of Sec.7B will spring up and it has to be referred to
arbitration. [Union of India v. M/s.
Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. AIR 1982 Del. 11, AIR 1981 Ori 11, AIR 1977
Ori. 48, 1989(1) K. LT. S.N. 42 page 25,: AIR 1977 Del. 132, 1964 MPLJ 831]
The reference contemplated under
Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 must precede arbitration and no follow
it, for once the telephone is disconnected, there is very little practical
purpose to be served by arbitration.
The state of disconnection even for the period f arbitration is
sufficient to cause even for the period of arbitration is sufficient to cause
irreparable injury to a subscriber who may need the telephone for his business
or for his profession or for his own personal needs. [Anthappan v. District Manager,
Telephones. 1980 Ker.L.T. 417 = AIR 1980 Ker. 201. P.Subramonian Poti (J) ]
It is not permissible for Telecom
Department to disconnect telephone before the disputes regarding non-payment of
dues and false metering raised has been adjudicated by arbitrator. The demand raised under the bills against
the subscriber cannot be said to be due from him if he has raised a protest
against the same and the dues have not bee finally determined by the
arbitrator. In such an event only the
amount which would be due against the subscriber is the amount which is
admitted by him as his dues and the rest of it which is disputed must be
determined by the arbitrator. The word
"due" would mean what is legally due or properly due and when dispute
is raised regarding the amount, it would mean in the context of the Act a sum
which has become due after determination legally. [Orissa Vegetable Oil Complex Ltd. v. Union of India. AIR 1990 Orissa 51]
Even if a dispute regarding
excess billing can be subject-matter of arbitration under Sec.7B., it would not
take way the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under
Art.226 of the Constitution of India.
[Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer.
AIR 1990 Gau. 49]
An arbitrator appointed under
Sec.7B of the II Act, by the Central Government could be an official belonging
to the Telephone Department. The
arbitrator so appointed has to act in a judicial and fair manner and free from
departmental bias. He can be removed by
the Court in exercise of powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India if a
case of actual bias is established. The
decision must be necessarily be reasoned decision. The decision has to be a reasoned one open for correction in a
writ of certiorari. [S. Kanyalal vs. Union of
India. AIR 1990 AP 1= 1990 (2) KLT SN.
35.P.32. M.Jagannadha Rao (J)]
Civil Court has no jurisdiction
to settle the dispute between the subscriber and the Telecom Department over
the excess billing in view of Sec. 7B.
[Smt. Makhani Devi Banka v. Union of India. AIR 1981 Ori.11] [See
Contrary view in Dr. J.N. Seth v. Union of India. AIR 1991 MP 180]
Remedy against the award of arbitrator under Sec.7B is only a
writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. [ B,Narayanan vs General
Manager. AIR 1998 Kant 278. R.V.Raveendran (J)]