SHAREKHAN LIMITED Vs. NITA THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner trading member/broker of Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (for short, 'BSE') has challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Arbitration Act' ), Arbitral Award dated 26 February 2010 passed by the Appellate Bench comprising of 5 Arbitrators against award dated 8 July 2009 passed by the Tribunal consists of 3 Arbitrators. The Appellate Bench has rejected the Appeal filed by the Petitioner-Appellant which was against the grant of claim in favour of the Respondent (Original-Applicant).

(2.) THE Respondent has filed a statement of claim on 24.03.2009 under the BSE Rules basically claiming wrongful Delay of Paying Charges (DPC) by the Respondent. The same was resisted in every aspect by the Petitioner by its reply dated 1 June 2009. The Petitioner relied on Clause 9.2.5 of the Member Client Agreement and 1.7.5 read with Rule 252(2), 252(3) and 227(a) of the BSE bye-laws. Those are as under:- Clause 9.2.5 '

(3.) MAY 2008 to January 2009. The DPC dispute is not covered by Bye-law 252(2), therefore, the limitation period of DPC is rightly covered by 252(3) as reproduced. 5 In my view it also take care of BSE and NSE segment account as are coextensive account with the constituent. There is no dispute that the Petitioner being a member, entered into an agreement for doing the business/ for transaction on stock exchanges. The transactions were, on instructions, on both the exchanges. Considering the scope of adjustment letter read with Rules and as there is nothing to debar the Petitioner from adjusting the amount as agreed, the action so taken by the Petitioner, cannot be stated to be illegal. The Tribunal's conclusion by overlooking the agreements and the nature of transactions and by holding that BSE and NSE segment accounts are not co-extensive accounts, is not correct.