{"id":134299,"date":"2000-03-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-03-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000"},"modified":"2019-04-04T21:31:00","modified_gmt":"2019-04-04T16:01:00","slug":"sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000","title":{"rendered":"Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; &#8230; on 6 March, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; &#8230; on 6 March, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2000 VAD Delhi 18, 85 (2000) DLT 668, 2000 (54) DRJ 300<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: . M Sharma<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. <\/p>\n<p>1.     The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for<br \/>\nissuance of a writ quashing the award dated 31.12.1998 passed by respondent<br \/>\nNo.2 under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   There  were two telephone connections, both in the name of  the  petitioner.  Telephone  No.6801740 was released to the petitioner  sometime  in November 1989 alongwith STD\/ISD facilities. The said telephone was however, disconnected in the month of October, 1993. On the basis of another  application  filed  by  the petitioner he was allotted  with  another  telephone No.6803600  which was released in the month of October, 1991 and  the  said telephone  also had STD\/ISD facilities. So far as telephone No.6801740  was concerned  regular bills were not issued from time to time due to fault  in the computer but a bil with due date of payment as 18.5.1993 was issued  to the  petitioner for the period from 30.5.1990 to 15.4.1993. The  said  bill included  charges  for rent, installation charges and interest  on  initial deposit  alongwith call charges to the tune of  Rs.9,46,123.80.  Thereafter two  more bills were issued to the petitioner which were  respectively  for<br \/>\nthe   amounts   of  Rs.1,34,463\/-  and  Rs.15,495\/-  making  a   total   of Rs.12,98,685\/-.  For  non-payment  of the  aforesaid  bills  the  telephone No.6801740 was disconnected on 27.10.1983. Even after the same as the  dues were  not paid the other telephone of the petitioner namely-telephone  No. 6803600 was also ought to be disconnected and at that stage the  petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which was registered as C.W. 4285\/1994. It  was stated in the said writ petition by the petitioner that  the  petitioner  has  only been given the first page of the  bill  and  accompanying pages  were not delivered to the petitioner and without giving  details  of the bills it was submitted, that no recovery be made from the petitioner in respect of the said bills.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   This court considered the submission of the counsel appearing for  the parties and on consideration thereof found that the document namely &#8211;  bill dated 18.5.1993 as filed in the writ petition contained only the first page of the bill bearing a foot note forming part of the bill and the  remaining portion was not on the record. It was the case of the petitioner that  only the  said  first page of the bill was received and the  accompanying  pages were not delivered to the petitioner. But the said plea was found to be not acceptable by this Court. The Division Bench however, issued a direction to<br \/>\nthe respondent to deliver to the petitioner duplicate copy of the  complete bill  with whatever details may be available with it as regards the  demand of Rs. 10,96,081.80 and on receipt of the said duplicate copy of the  bills and  details in accordance with the direction, the petitioner was asked  to raise  a  dispute  to the respondent and on the dispute  being  raised  the respondent was directed to take steps for appointment of an arbitrator.  It was also observed that reference of the disputes to the arbitrator shall be made  in consonance with the provisions of Section 7B of the  Indian  Telegraph  Act and that the arbitrator shall rendered a reasoned  award  within four  months  from  the date of entering upon the reference  and  that  the admitted amount not forming subject matter of dispute shall be deposited by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   In  terms  of  the aforesaid direction passed by  the  Division  Bench duplicate copies of the bills with some details were sent to the  petitioner.  It is however, the stand of the petitioner that no such  details  have been  received  as  ordered to be furnished by the  court.  The  petitioner however,  did not raise any dispute with the respondent nor  deposited  the admitted  amount in terms of the order passed by this court. As  the  petitioner did not seek for a reference the respondent of its own made a reference to the arbitrator under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The  arbitrator entered upon the reference and issued notices  to  the parties,  who  on  receipt of the same filed their  statement  and  counter statement.  It was contended before the arbitrator by the  petitioner  that the  respondent  was required to furnish duplicate copy of the  bills  with whatever  details and after receipt of the same within one month the  petitioner was to raise dispute and after appointment in terms of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act the arbitrator was to render reasoned award withina months and the admitted amount was to be deposited by the petitioner.  It was  stated that as the bills with details\/break up was not given  and  the dispute beyond the bill amount cannot be raised the reference was  illegal. The arbitrator considered the counter claim raised by the respondent claiming  total dues at Rs.10,99,874\/- in respect of telephone  No.6801740  with STD\/ISD facilities for the billing cycle 1.5.1993 for Rs.9,49,916\/-,  bill-\n<\/p>\n<p>ing cycle 1.7.1993 for Rs.1,14,463\/- and for billing cycle 1.9.1993 for  an amount of Rs.15,495\/- totaling Rs.10,99,874\/- excluding interest, total  of which comes to Rs.23,91,107.20.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   It was contended on behalf of the respondent in support of its counter claim  that the bills were raised as per its meter readings for the  actual use of the telephone made during the aforesaid periods for which the  bills were  issued  and  therefore, the petitioner is liable to  pay  the  entire amount in terms of the claim. The arbitrator considered the record as  also the  pleadings  of the parties and thereafter observed that the  bills  although  raised  from May 1990 to July 1993 for the billing  cycle  1.5.1993 have  been  issued based on fortnightly meter reading of fortnight  as  per billing  practice.  He also observed that the petitioner at  no  stage  approached the department for issue of bills. He also found that as item-wise details  in  respect of the bill could not be provided due to  the  reasons stated  by the respondent which was also accepted by the High Court and  as the  duplicate  bills have been submitted by the respondent  with  whatever<br \/>\ndetails as available with the respondent in terms of the orders of the High Court,  it was ordered by the arbitrator upon consideration of the  records that  the  petitioner  is  liable to pay the  entire  outstanding  dues  of Rs.10,99,874\/- for the aforesaid 3 disputed billing cycles. The arbitrator, considering  the over all facts of the case, allowed the petitioner to  pay the amount in 4 monthly installments with a further order that in the  vent of  his  failure  to pay installments within 30 days after  the  bills  are raised  by the concerned Accounts Officer of the area, interest @  18%  per<br \/>\nannum would be chargeable. The claim for payment of interest from the  date of the bill was however, declined by the Arbitrator. Being aggrieved by the award of the arbitrator the present petition has been preferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   It  was submitted by Mr. Nigam appearing on behalf of  the  petitioner that  the award passed by the Arbitrator is not only barred  by  limitation but  that  is  also an error apparent on the face of the  record.  He  also submitted  that  the award is based on non-existent facts and is  based  on extraneous  grounds.  He  submitted that the reference of  the  dispute  in question was made by the respondent on 27.11.1997 and the award was  passed on  31.12.1998  which is beyond the period of 4 months  stipulated  by  the court  and therefore, the said award is barred by limitation and is bad  in<br \/>\nlaw. The said submission was considered by me giving due weight thereto. It is true that the said award was passed by the arbitrator beyond the  period of  4  months without there beng any formal extension of time. But  it  is necessary  to  mention at this stage that the parties continued  to  appear before  the  arbitrator even after expiry of 4 months period  and  did  not raise  any objection regarding expiry of the 4 months period and  continued to take part in the proceedings actively without raising objection  regarding the limitation. Therefore, the parties by their conduct agreed to waive<br \/>\nof  the period of 4 months stipulated for passing the award and  therefore, for all practical purposes times for passing the award was extended by  the parties  which could be deduced from their conduct. For arriving at  aforesaid findings I find support from a decision of the Supreme Court in  Nagar Palika,  Mirzapur  Vs. Mirzapur Electric Supply Co. Ltd., . In the backdrop of almost similar facts the  Supreme  Court held that the conduct of the parties is a major factor to waive the  extension  of  time given by the Court. In the said case the time was  taken  as extended taking into consideration the conduct of the parties in continuing to  appear  in  the arbitration proceedings without  objection.  The  first contention  therefore, of the learned counsel appearing for the  petitioner is without any merit.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   The  learned  counsel for the petitioner thereafter referring  to  the observations of the arbitrator as recorded in the award submitted that  the bills stated to have been issued for billing cycle 1.5.1993 were not  based on fortnightly meter readings at regular intervals as held by the  arbitrator.  It is true that the arbitrator has recorded that the  bills  although raised  for a period extending 3 years for the billing cycle 1.5.1993  were issued  based  on fortnightly meter readings at regular  intervals,  in  my considered opinion the aforesaid observation has been made by the  arbitrator upon perusal of the records of the case. In a matter like this the High Court cannot substitute its own views in place of the view of the  arbitrator. The High Court does not have power to examine the matter as an  appellate court as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of B.V.  Radha Krishna  Vs.  Sponge Iron India Limited, .  On<br \/>\ngoing  through  the records it was found by the arbitrator that  the  bills although  for  the period from may 1990 to July 1993 for the  billing  cycle 1.5.1993 were issued based on fortnightly meter readings at regular  intervals  of  fortnight and therefore, the said conclusions of fact  cannot  be upset  in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or the  Constitution  of  India. It was also submitted that reference has been  made  to  a letter  dated 13.3.1997 in the award by the arbitrator. It is contended  by<br \/>\nthe  counsel  appearing for the petitioner that no such letter  was  placed before  the Arbitrator. I have considered the record of the arbitrator  and on  perusal thereof find that in fact the letter dated 13.3.1997 existe  on record which indicates that the Area Officer issued duplicate bills to  the petitioner  with whatever details that were available with the  respondent. The  said  details contained the period for which the bill  is  issued  and metering  details  also. The petitioner, after receiving  the  said  letter dated 13.3.1997 should have raised the dispute in terms of the order of the<br \/>\nCourt and should have paid the admitted dues which according to the learned counsel  for  the petitioner, the petitioner is liable to pay but  were  in fact  not  paid. The petitioner, therefore, even did not  comply  with  the orders  of  the  Division Bench of this Court. Counsel  appearing  for  the petitioner also submitted that the forth nightly meter reading of  telephone No.6801740  was  not provided for at any point of time. Item  wise  details were  not available with the respondent as the period for  preservation  of item  wise  billings is only six months and thereafter magnetic  tapes  are alone  available for availing dates and therefore, it was not  possible  to give  each and every detail but the bills were based on  fortnightly  meter reading  on the basis of the magnetic tapes in the exchange which  did  not record item wise calls. The conclusion arrived at by the arbitrator  cannot be said to be extraneous and\/or unreasonable. I also do not find any  error<br \/>\napparent  on  the face of the record. The arbitrator is the sole  Judge  of facts, and adequacy and sufficiency of the evidence is not a matter for the Court  to judge. So long as the finding of the arbitrator is based on  some evidence  it does not warrant any interference as has been held by a  decision  of  this Court in C.W.P. No. 4880\/1997 (Kalawati  Agarwal  Vs.  MTNL) delivered  on 1.12.1998. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition  and the same is dismissed but without any costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; &#8230; on 6 March, 2000 Equivalent citations: 2000 VAD Delhi 18, 85 (2000) DLT 668, 2000 (54) DRJ 300 Author: . M Sharma Bench: . M Sharma ORDER Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; ... on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; ... on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-04T16:01:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; &#8230; on 6 March, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-04T16:01:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2083,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000\",\"name\":\"Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; ... on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-04T16:01:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; &#8230; on 6 March, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; ... on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; ... on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-04T16:01:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; &#8230; on 6 March, 2000","datePublished":"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-04T16:01:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000"},"wordCount":2083,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000","name":"Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; ... on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-04T16:01:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-kapoor-vs-mahanagar-telephone-nigam-ltd-on-6-march-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sudhir Kapoor vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &amp; &#8230; on 6 March, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134299","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=134299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}