2025:JHHC:24113-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Commercial Appeal No. 7 of 2025 1. M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, CMD (BSNL) through the Directors, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Mathur Lane, Janpath, P.O. & P.S. Sansad Marg, District- New Delhi-110001 2. Director, Enterprise (BSNL, H.Q, Delhi) Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Mathur Lane, Janpath, P.O. & P.S.-Sansad Marg, District- New Delhi-110001 3. Director, C & M (BSNL, H.Q. Delhi) Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Mathur Lane, Janpath, P.O. & P.S. - Sansad Marg, District New Delhi-110001 4. Director, Enterprise (BSNL, H.Q. Delhi) Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Mathur Lane, Janpath, P.O. & P.S. Sansad Marg, District New Delhi-110001 5. DDG (Sales & Marketing) (BSNL, H.Q. Delhi) Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Mathur Lane, Janpath, P.O. & P.S. Sansad Marg, District New Delhi-110001 6. DGM (Sales & Marketing) (BSNL, H.Q. Delhi) Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Mathur Lane, Janpath, P.O. & P.S. - Sansad Marg, District- New Delhi-110001 7. CGM (Jharkhand Telecom Circle) 1st Floor, ARRTC, BSNL, Near Jumar Pool, Mesra, P.S. Sadar, P.O. Neori, District –Ranchi 8. IFA (Jharkhand Telecom Circle) 1st Floor, ARRTC, BSNL, Near Jumar Pool, Mesra, P.S. Sadar, P.O. Neori, District -Ranchi 9. GM (BD 7 NC) (Jharkhand Telecom Circle) 1st Floor, ARRTC, BSNL, Near Jumar Pool, Mesra, P.S. Sadar, P.O. - Neori, District Ranchi 10. AGM (Marketing) (Jharkhand Telecom Circle) 1st Floor, ARRTC, BSNL, Near Jumar Pool, Mesra, P.S. Sadar, P.O. -Neori, District- Ranchi. 11. Sub Divisional Engineer, I/C CTO, Ranchi, Saheed Chowk, CTO Building O/O GMTD, Ranchi, BSNL,P.O.- GPO, P.S. Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi Appellants are represented through AGM (Legal), in the O/o. PGM, BA, Ranchi namely Sushil Kumar Sinha, Son of Late L. B. P. Sinha, resident of Flat No. 402, Bachhan Residency, Jai Prakash Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Bariyatu, District - Ranchi ... Respondents/Appellants Versus M/S Kamdhenu Electronics Pvt Ltd, a company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956 being a franchise of the Bharat Sanchar 2025:JHHC:24113-DB Nigam Limited (BSNL) having its business establishment in Shop no 3, Makhija Towers, Main Road, Ranchi, PO GPO, PS Lower Bazar, represented through its director Harsh Manek, aged about 20 years S/O Sri Anand Manek, R/O 402-B, 4th Floor, Siddhi Vinayak Apartment, Mukti Sharan Lane, HB Road, Lalpur, PO & PS- Lalpur, Dist.- Ranchi-834001. ... Claimant/Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate --------- 02/Dated: 18.08.2025 Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.(Oral) 1. The respondent herein filed an arbitration case seeking directions against the appellants to pay the difference amount of commission for the period 01.09.2006 to 23.03.2007 which has been withheld by the appellants. 2. Both the parties entered into a new Franchisee Policy 2006 which was effective from 01.09.2006. 3. Incidentally, similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 4229 of 2010 with the same grievance as that of raised by the respondent herein. 4. This dispute also related to the same policy of 2006 and this Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioners therein to file a representation before the Chief General Manager (Jharkhand Telecom Circle), BSNL, Ranchi and the appellants herein were directed to consider the representation in view of the new policy of 2006 and take a decision. Eventually, the respondents had paid the differential amount of the commission and such order admittedly has attained finality. 2025:JHHC:24113-DB 5. The learned counsel for the appellants was not in a position to substantiate his plea that the case of the respondent herein is different from that of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 4229 of 2010. 6. If that was so, obviously the Arbitrator committed no mistake much less any illegality in granting the differential amount of the commission to the petitioners on the basis of parity. 7. In the given facts and circumstances, we really wonder how the award passed by the Arbitrator was even open to challenge once the same had been passed on the basis of parity, given the fact that the appellants even in the Court below could not distinguish the case of the present respondent with those of the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 4229 of 2010. 8. Once this is the admitted position, obviously, even this appeal is clearly misconceived in the factual backgrounds of the case and it is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.A.F.R. Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2