MEENA KUMAR Vs. AJAI SECURITIES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal from order has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2009 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, by which application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant was dealing with respondent no.1, who is a share broker, to purchase and sale the shares. Various transactions were made during 27.8.2003 to 24.8.2005 and the appellant invested a sum of Rs.23,73,049.09. In order to quit herself from the business, the appellant demanded her money back by letter dated 4.4.2006 and subsequently by legal notice dated 14.7.2006. The appellant also lodged a claim before the Grievance Committee of U.P. Stock Exchange Association Limited, Kanpur on 24.7.2006 but the Grievance Committee rejected the claim of the appellant vide order dated 4.10.2006 on the ground that the claim was barred by time. The appellant filed an Arbitration Case on 3.11.2006 before the Arbitration Committee of U.P. Stock Exchange Association Limited, Kanpur for quashing the decision of the Grievance Committee. After hearing both the parties, the Sole Arbitrator also rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground of delay. An application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, which was also rejected vide impugned order dated 27.4.2009.

(3.) The order of the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar has been challenged on the ground that learned District Judge has not appreciated properly the aspect that when the dispute arose. Rule 269 of Bye-laws of the U.P. Stock Exchange Association Limited, Kanpur has been wrongly interpreted. The date of 5.10.2005 has been wrongly interpreted to be a date of dispute. The date of dispute should be calculated from the date when the statement of account was demanded on 4.4.2006 or from the date of legal notice dated 14.7.2006. Learned Sole Arbitrator has failed to appreciate the fact and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law applicable in its proper prospective and has illegally rejected the claim of the appellant, hence the judgment and order dated 27.4.2009 is liable to be set-aside.