Telephone dues by partner of a firm with regard to individual telephone The firm of which a particular subscriber is a partner cannot be taken as a subscriber for the purpose of Rule 443. For recovering the dues and for default of the firm, the telephone authority has therefore no jurisdiction to proceed to disconnect the telephone of the firm. [Farkhrudheen Ahmed Baramy vs The Accounts Officer and anr. OP.No. 24222 of 2000, dated 31st August,2000. M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]
Telephone installed in a residential premises. Later used the
premises for commercial purposes. There is no provision in the Telegraph Act or
the Rules for disconnecting a telephone on the ground that the premises were not
occupied for purpose of residence or used for purpose of business by the person
in whose name the telephone was sanctioned. [K.Ayyappan Pillai vs Divisional Engineer. 1974 KLT
41.V.Gopalan Nambiar (J)]
Dispute referred to arbitration . Pending disconnection shall not be effected. [ George Thomas vs. District Manager. OP.No. 3358 of 1976, Dated 7th April, 1977, Kerala . P.Subramoniam Poti (J) & K.K.Narendran (J)]
It was held by the Kerala High Court that a mere permission
to another for the use of telephone will not be assignment It will not be sub-letting either
absolute or qualified. Any
subscriber permitting another person to use his telephone cannot be said to be
misusing the telephone Disconnection of telephone on the ground that it was
misused. The reasons for
satisfaction is to be recorded in writing.
The authorities are bound to pass an order in writing recording the
reasons for disconnection before such disconnection is made. [Anthappan v. District Manager,
Telephones, 1980 K. L.T. 417 = 1980 KLN 214 = ILR 1980(2) Ker 538 = AIR 1980 Ker
201. P.Subramonian Poti (J)
]
Mere permission to use the telephone does not amount to an
assignment. [ Dr. Vijayan vs General Manager . 1988(2)
KLT 572 = 1988(2) KLJ 290. Varghese Kalliath (J)
Default by a relative - Not a sufficient ground to disconnect the telephone. [ T.Abraham vs The Telecom District Manager. AIR 1999 Ker 359 , K.P.Dandapani (J)]
Complaint regarding unauthorised use of the telephone only
providing external extension and it was without knowledge of the
Department. Dispute falls within
Sec.7B and it has to be referred to arbitration. [K.N. Achuthan Pillai v. Union
of India. AIR 1988 Ker.
140]
Extension taken from the receiver. Complaint that it is
unauthorized. It is dispute coming under Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph
Act,1885. [Achuthan Pillai vs Union of India.
1988(1) KLT 41 = 1988(1) KLJ 43 = AIR 1989 Ker 140 = ILR 1988(2) Ker 170.
K.T.Thomas (J)]
Subscriber is alleged to have misused by using conference facility. Disconnection without issuing notice is not proper. [Jagdish Nathalal Barai vs Union of India. AIR 1998 Guj 70. S.D.Pandit (J)]
A firm was having two telephones .Both under the control of one of the partiners . One was shifted . Dissolution of the firm. Reconnection sought. Department cannot refuse. [Shymasunder Naraprasad Choudhari vs. General Manager. AIR 1998 Gujarat 189. R.A.Mehta (J)
