UMA Vs. APOLLO SINDHOORI CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in O.P.No. 299 of 2009 aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.10.2017 allowing the said Original Petition and setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator is before us in this Court in this Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The first respondent herein, M/s. Apollo Sindhoori Capital Investments Ltd., had originally preferred a claim petition seeking resolution through arbitration of their dispute with the appellant as covenanted in the agreement dated 20.12.2005. The first respondent was incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and was a member of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited. They are registered as a Trading Member in the Capital Market Segment and also as a Trading Member on the Derivatives Market Segment of National Stock Exchange of India Limited with SEBI . They had entered into an agreement with the appellant herein, who was termed as a Constituent and who was desirous of investing/trading in securities/contracts/other and such instruments. The agreement also provided for dealing with various segments of the stock exchange in shares/financial instruments after satisfying the genuineness and the financial soundness of both the parties. This agreement dated 20.12.2005 also contained an Arbitration clause and the said clause covenanted that any dispute or difference relating to trading on the exchange would be resolved by Arbitration in accordance with the Bye Laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange. Parties were specifically prohibited from taking recourse to any other legal avenue. It was covenanted that the site of Arbitration shall be Chennai City.

(3.) Disputes arose between the parties. An electronic mail was sent by the appellant to the first respondent on 13.03.2008 wherein she claimed that the first respondent had debited huge amounts on various dates between December 2007 and January 2008. She had specifically disclaimed knowledge of the specified transactions and also categorically stated that the transactions did not pertain to her. She also specifically mentioned that the credits made against cheques were fake and artificial credits were also made. She specifically denied confirming the balance and specifically sought rectification of wrong debits and credits in her account. The first respondent replied by stating that the transactions were effected only after receiving confirmation messages and that the Daily Contract Note was also forwarded to the E-mail ID of the appellant on daily basis. The first respondent further claimed that in the course of the transactions the appellant had incurred a debit balance of Rs.1,00,455.51/- which according to the first respondent had arisen as a result of selling and buying of shares/derivatives. The first respondent claimed that the appellant had failed to make necessary payment to clear the said debit.