LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-295

SATISH KUMAR MANGLA Vs. ANGEL BROKING PVT. LTD.

Decided On May 29, 2017
Satish Kumar Mangla Appellant
V/S
Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the judgment of the court below dated 17.12.2016 which has allowed the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the respondent herein, and which company was the objector in the proceedings in the court below under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the respondent should not get the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act with respect to the arbitration proceedings which has resulted in the award dated 19.3.2014.

(2.) The facts of the case are that appellant was the customer of the respondent in the F &O segment of the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE). With respect to the security transactions conducted in the trading account of the appellant, disputes arose with the respondent, and resultantly the respondent herein preferred an arbitration claim before the NSE. The present appellant, who was the respondent in the court below, had filed claim for a sum of Rs. 14,67,138.95/-. The present appellant, who was respondent in the court below, filed a counter-claim in the arbitration proceedings for a sum of Rs. 34,11,500/-. In these arbitration proceedings on the joint request made by both the parties and with the consent of both the parties an order dated 10.3.2010 was passed giving liberties to the parties to invoke the civil jurisdiction of the competent court and the arbitration proceedings stood disposed of accordingly.

(3.) As a result of the order passed in the arbitration proceedings giving liberty to approach the civil court, the present respondent therefore moved the High Court of Mumbai and in which proceedings the appellant also participated. This suit was disposed of by the High Court of Mumbai in terms of its order dated 22.6.2012 whereby the parties were directed either to continue with the previous arbitration proceedings which were withdrawn or parties were at liberty to initiate a fresh arbitration proceedings before the NSE.