1973 (11) TMI 104 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disconnection of a partner's personal telephone line due to arrears of the partnership firm's telephone charges.
2. Exhaustion of the power to disconnect a telephone line after it has been exercised once.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disconnection of a Partner's Personal Telephone Line Due to Arrears of the Partnership Firm's Telephone Charges:

The petitioner, a businessman and partner in Shakti Oil Mills, faced disconnection of his personal telephone line (No. 184) due to the firm's arrears on its telephone line (No. 491). The petitioner contended that his personal line should not be disconnected for the firm's arrears.

The court examined the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. Rule 443 allows disconnection of any telephone rented by a subscriber if there is a default in payment. The court clarified that a partnership firm is not a legal entity distinct from its partners, as established by the Supreme Court in Her Highness Maharani Mandalsa Devi v. H. Ramnarain Private Ltd. Thus, the firm's liability is the joint and several liability of all its partners under Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

The court concluded that the petitioner, being a partner, was jointly and severally liable for the firm's arrears. Therefore, the disconnection of his personal telephone line was justified under Rule 443.

2. Exhaustion of the Power to Disconnect a Telephone Line After It Has Been Exercised Once:

The petitioner argued that once the Telephone Department exercised its power to disconnect a telephone line, it could not do so again. The court found no merit in this argument, stating that the power to disconnect can be exercised as long as the default continues and there are telephone lines available for disconnection.

The court emphasized that a subscriber must pay for all telephone charges, and if in default, all telephone lines rented by the subscriber can be disconnected under Rule 443. The power to disconnect is not exhausted after a single exercise but continues until the default is rectified.

Conclusion:

The court held that the petitioner was liable for the arrears of Shakti Oil Mills and that the Telephone Department acted within its powers under Rule 443 by disconnecting the petitioner's personal telephone line. The petition was dismissed, and the court found no substance in the petitioner's arguments.