LAWS(DLH)-2023-11-37

SMC GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD Vs. URMILA GOEL

Decided On November 06, 2023
SMC GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD Appellant
V/S
URMILA GOEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the order dtd. 22/8/2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge- 03, North West District, Rohini, Delhi in ARBTN No.57521/2016, whereby the objections filed by the appellant against the award were dismissed. Appellant also challenges the arbitral award dtd. 15/12/2014 passed by the Sole Arbitrator as well as the award dtd. 15/4/2015 passed by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant states that the objections filed by the appellant have been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge without considering any of the arguments advanced by the appellant highlighting the fraud and mis-representation by the respondent as well as the violation of the National Stock Exchange Bye-laws.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant states that the disputes between the appellant and the respondent was with respect to a transaction dtd. 16/5/2014 when respondent had an open position of bearish stocks / product. He states that on 16/5/2014 the results of the parliamentary elections were announced and as one of the political parties secured an absolute majority, the stock market suddenly shot-up and the stocks purchased by the respondent in view of its bearish nature started going down/weakening and consequently the margin money started eroding and within a time span of 30-45 minutes of opening of the market, almost 95% of margin money in the account of respondent was eroded. He further states that the grievance of the respondent was that her stocks had been sold by the appellant without her consent. He states that it is also the respondent's contention that she suffered losses due to squaring off the position by the appellant. He, however, asserts that the transaction was carried out by the appellant only after obtaining the respondent's consent on telephone and that too on account of non-payment of margin.