Calcutta, March, 19 :    Calcutta, March, 19:  The battle hasn't yet begun - one of the competitors is only into laying cables right now - but the truce is tenuous between the Reliance group and Calcutta Telephones. Though both sides would like to play down the spat that threatened to snowball into a showdown, officials said a meeting at Telephone Bhavan between the two camps 'barely managed to resolve things for the moment'. It all began with BSNL alleging last week that Reliance's cable-laying work had delinked around 10,000 homes from the fixed-line network. 'It resulted in our officials feeling that the Centre was being stepmotherly towards its own unit,' a middle-ranking BSNL official said. The BSNL top brass was quick to invite Reliance officials for discussions. 'We asked them (the BSNL top brass) what happens if a Calcutta Telephones team inadvertantly damages our cables six months from now,' a senior Reliance official later told Metro. 'We did not receive any satisfactory reply,' he added. The fault for the 'inadvertent error', Reliance officials claim, lay with the BSNL. Calcutta Telephones could not provide an 'AS-PUILT' drawing (sketching the position of cables), despite several requests, they alleged. 'Still, we tried trial-digging at spots a little away from each other to ascertain the position of BSNL cables,' a senior Reliance official said. 'What could we do if the trial-digging itself damaged some lines?' he asked. BSNL officials, however, claimed Reliance didn't inform them about their digging drive. 'Exchanges were informed in a haphazard way,' an official alleged. 'We have now asked them to give a seven-day notice to the area manager concerned,' he said, adding that they would now try to depute a 'supervisory person' wherever Reliance dug up streets. The most contentious issue - money - is yet to be resolved, admit officials. BSNL officials claimed that they had drawn up a detailed list of the damage cost of the Reliance work. But Reliance said no compensation could be given till BSNL justified the demand as there was no consensus in the damage claim from different exchanges.