KARVY STOCK BROKING LIMITED Vs. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugning legality, validity and correctness of order dated 25.3.2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1996'), this arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 has been preferred by the appellant.

(2.) In order to resolve the arbitral dispute arisen between the parties as per National Stock Exchange bye-laws, the matter was referred to the Investor Grievance Redressal Panel (hereinafter called as 'IGRP') constituted under the National Stock Exchange bye-laws which have been framed by the National Stock Exchange under section 9 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Said IGRP held its meeting at NSE, Indore on 12.2.2016 and passed an award in favour of the respondent that he is entitled for claim of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The appellant feeling aggrieved by order dated 12.2.2016 preferred an arbitration reference as per bye-laws No.1 of Chapter-XI of National Stock Exchange bye-laws. The sole arbitrator-Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.P. Khare by award dated 14.7.2016 dismissed the appellant's claim. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Arbitrator consisting of three members under bye-laws 19(a) of ChapterXI of the National Stock Exchange bye-laws. The said Tribunal also affirmed the order passed by the sole arbitrator. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the appellant preferred an application under Section 34(2) of the Act of 1996, which has been dismissed by learned District Judge by impugned order holding that it is second appeal, which is barred under Section 37 (1) (c) of the Act of 1996. Questioning that order, this arbitration appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Mr.Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that such an appeal is maintainable as there is two-tire arbitration admissible to the parties and arbitration proceedings under the bye-laws and regulations are subject to the provisions of the Act of 1996, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.