ANIL V. MADGAVKAR Vs. IFIN COMMODITIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these Appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the appellants have impugned the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Arbitration Petitions filed by each of these Appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act ') . By consent of parties, all these appeals were heard finally at the admission stage. The parties have addressed this Court in the lead matter i.e. Appeal No. 8 of 2021 and have stated that the view that would be taken by this Court in the said lead matter would also apply to the other matters in this batch of appeals. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these appeal are as under :-

(2.) The appellant was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings and was the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge. It was the case of the appellant that on 8th March, 2011, the appellant and the respondent no.1 entered into an agreement in respect of investment of Rs.50,00,000/- to be made by the appellant. The appellant issued a cheque for the said amount in the name of the respondent no.1. Under the said agreement, there was a stop loss trigger of 3.5% loss. According to the appellant, all trades were to be done with prior written consent of the appellant by the respondent no.1. On 14th March, 2011, the appellant invested an additional amount of Rs.25,00,000/- by issuing a cheque in the name of the respondent no.1. The transactions were carried out by the appellant through the respondent no.2.

(3.) It is the case of the appellant that on 14th April, 2011, the respondent no.2 who was alleged to be an agent of the respondent no.1 asked for a massive increase in its commission. The entire family of the appellant who had invested along with the appellant immediately instructed the respondent no.1 to stop all further investments and called for refund of the amounts invested by the appellant. In the first week of May, 2011, there was a crash in the Commodity Market due to which the appellant lost 70% of its investment value.