GOPAL DAS GAUR Vs. SUMAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ramesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Pandey learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 2 is only a formal party.

(2.) A dispute arose between the appellant and respondent no. 1 with regard to transaction of 1300 shares of Reliance Capital Limited which was referable to Arbitration under the Bye laws of U. P. Stock Exchange Association Limited. The Arbitral Tribunal vide award dated 16. 10. 2006 directed the appellant to make payment of Rs. 91,220/- to the respondent within three months in full and final settlement of 1300 shares of Reliance Capital Limited which were the subject matter of dispute. Against the said award appellant filed objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Besides, the two other objections that the award is against the public policy of India and that the tribunal lacked authority, the primary objection of the appellant before the court below was that that the claim raised by the respondent was barred by time. The said objections have been rejected by the court below by the impugned judgment and order dated 25. 2. 2009 inter alia on the reasoning that the arbitral award is not liable to be set aside on the point of limitation as this is not the ground which has been provided for setting aside the award under Section 34 of the Act. 2. Aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 37 (b) of the Act.

(3.) IN appeal the only point argued is that the claim was time barred and therefore the award was liable to be set aside. In support reliance has been placed upon the bye-law no. 269 which provides that the Investors Services Committee of the U. P. Stock Exchange shall not accept and take cognizance of any complaint, difference and dispute other than of bad delivery of shares if it is not referred to it within four months of the date when it arose. On the basis of the aforesaid bye-law it has been contended that the last transaction giving rise to the dispute is of 10. 5. 2005, whereas, dispute was raised for the first time on 27. 12. 2005 and as such was patently barred by time.