DEBJYOTI GUPTA Vs. INDIABULLS SECURITIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant claims to be aggrieved by an order of the learned Single Judge dated 25th April, 2012 rejecting his petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Since he was not represented on the date the order was made, an application was moved for recall of the order explaining the grounds for the counsel's inability to be present. These found favour with the learned Single Judge who accepted the reasons but at the same time refused to interfere with the impugned order by the subsequent order dated 12th February, 2013.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Nag argued that the interpretation of Byelaw-3 of Chapter-XI of the National Stock Exchange Byelaws, adopted by the Arbitrator and endorsed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. He relied upon the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 as well as Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872. Learned counsel further stated that even agreeing to the relevant byelaw, the time taken in conciliation proceeding had to be excluded and that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit of that part of bye-law ought to have been considered. Counsel lastly urged that the impugned order observes erroneously that the award to the extent it dealt with off-market transactions is based on "a possible interpretation" which is impeachable. Counsel attacked on the findings of the learned Single Judge stating that it was speculative and did not contain reasons.

(3.) The award in this case was made pursuant to a dispute between the appellant an investor who was also appointed as a Remisier by the respondent National Stock Exchange (NSE) in terms of the letter dated 1st February, 2002. His mandate was to introduce clients to the NSE against commission payable. Apparently, the NSE opened their books in March, 2002 and a trading account with customer identification number was furnished to the appellant for which he paid Rs.10,000/-. At the appellant's request, the NSE opened another trading account in April, 2002 in the joint names of the petitioner and members of his family. The dispute sought to be raised pertained to certain transfer of shares of Glaxosmithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Limited in May, 2002. The second dispute pertained to certain off-market transaction. When the dispute was sought to be pressed pursuant to the claim filed with the Arbitrator on 31st October, 2005 - the NSE resisted the proceedings urging that in terms of Bye-law -3, the claims were time-barred.