BHUVANESWARI & CO., BY ITS PROPRIETOR S. JAYARAMAN, MADRAS Vs. THE COUNCIL OF MANAGEMENT ADRAS STOCK EXCHANGE LTD., MADRAS REPRESENTED BY TS SECRETARY,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition is filed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint an umpire under Bye -law No.248(1) of the Bye -laws, Rules and Regulations of the Madras Stock Exchange on the failure of the respondents 3 and 4 to pass an Award within the statutory time and pass an award at the earliest dispute that had arisen between the petitioner firm and the second respondent .

(2.) THE petitioner firm is a member of the first respondent Stock Exchange as stock and share broker. The second respondent was acting as a Sub -broker under the petitioner firm and used to place orders for sale and purchase of shares. Every time the petitioner firm used to send the contracts for the particular transaction and the sales will be made and adjusted. Difference arose between the second respondent and petitioner firm and the conciliation by the elder members of Stock Exchange failed. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application to refer the matter to arbitration on 5.5.1989. The petitioner appointed the 3rd respondent as his arbitrator in accordance with the bye law No.245(a). The second respondent failed to appoint his arbitrator. Therefore, the first respondent under Regulation No.246(1) appointed the 4th respondent as Arbitrator. The second respondent on 8.7.1989 filed a counter statement disputing the claim of the petitioner. The arbitrators according to Regulation No.250 have to file the award within four months or within the extended period .On 6.9.1991 since the matter was pending for considerable time, the Arbitrators decided to appoint an Auditor to scrutinise the statements of accounts, books of M/s. Bhuvaneswari and Co. and the statements and records submitted by Narbhavi and Co to arrive at the final claim. Accordingly, M/s. Jaikishan Arun Associates, Chartered Accountants, No.4 Sarojini Street, T.Nagar, Madras was appointed as an Auditor to scrutinise the books of accounts of both the petitioner firm and the second respondent. The auditors filed their report. Even after writing several reminders the 3rd and 4th respondents did not pass the award. Hence petitioner firm issued a legal notice on 13.5.1993 requesting the Arbitrators to pass the Award. But till date of filing the writ petition, no award was passed. Therefore the writ petition has been filed with the the prayer to appoint an Umpire under Bye -law No.248 (1) of the Bye -laws

(3.) NO counter has been filed by any of the respondents. From the affidavit it is seen that the respondents 3 and 4, who have been appointed as Arbitrators have not passed award till date, even though the arbitrators were appointed as early as 5.5.1989. According to Bye -law 248 of Madras Stock Exchange Bye -laws, the Council of Management or the President shall appoint an umpire if from any cause the arbitrators appointed fail within the time (or extended time) prescribed in these Bye -laws and Regulations either to make an award or to appoint or to concur in the appointment of an umpire. Under Regulation 250, the arbitrators shall make their award within four months after entering on the reference or after having called upon to act by notice in writing from any party or within such extended time as the arbitrators may fix with the consent of the parties to the reference or as the Council of Management or the President may allow.