INDIABULLS SECURITIES LTD. Vs. AMULYA RATAN DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH OMP Nos. 436/2005 and 9/2006 have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1996) challenging the Arbitral Awards dated 26th August and 30th September, 2005. Since common issues of fact and law arise in both the proceedings and respondents in the two petitions are husband and wife, the said two petitions with consent of parties are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) MR . Rajeev K. Virmani, learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that the arbitral tribunals had failed to appreciate that the claims filed by the respondents were barred by limitation. In this connection, Mr. Virmani, relied upon Chapter XI of the Bye laws of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited. The relevant portion of the said Chapter reads as under:

(3.) MR . Virmani further submitted that the arbitral tribunals had not found the petitioner responsible for any breach of contract. He stated that Mr. Debjyoti Gupta who had specifically been authorized by the respondents to operate the securities trading/depository account, was an agent of the respondents. In this connection, Mr. Virmani referred to two undated letters written by the respondents to the petitioner as well as the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the respondents and their agent Mr. Debjyoti Gupta. The two undated letters written by the respondents which according to Mr. Virmani had been written in October, 2002 are reproduced hereinbelow: