AMIN MERCHANT Vs. BIPIN M GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition, the petitioner is challenging an award of the Appellate Bench of Arbitration Tribunal of Mumbai Stock Exchange, dated 17 the September, 2003 passed in Appeal No. 19-A of 2003.

(2.) SOME of the material facts of the present case, briefly enumerated, are as under : according to respondent No. 1, the petitioner was introduced to him through one Shri Vijay C. Shah for carrying on various transactions of purchase and sale of various shares of Bombay Stock Exchange. It is an admitted position that there is no member-client agreement executed by and between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is a Director of M/s. Krishana Incap Services Pvt. Ltd. who is a member of National Stock Exchange of India. However, in respect of National Stock Exchange, there is client constitution agreement by and between the company viz. M/ s. Krishana incap Services Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner herein.

(3.) ACCORDING to respondent No. 1, there are transactions by and between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner on the Bombay Stock Exchange in settlement Nos. A-29 and A-30 of the year 2000-2001. According to respondent No. 1, as on 20th October, 2000 there was a debit balance of Rs. 6,30,006. 05 in the books of accounts of respondent No. 1 in the name of petitioner herein. On 27th October, 2000 petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 001673 dated 27th October, 2000 for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- drawn on U. T. I. Bank Ltd. The said cheque was returned dishonoured on 31st October, 2000, 2nd November, 2000 and 31 st March, 2001 on presentation and representation. A criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending before 33rd court of Metropolitan Magistrate. According to respondent No. 1, he had issued confirmation memos and bills for settlement Nos. A-29 and A-30 to the petitioner herein and, thus, there was outstanding amount in respect of transaction effected by the petitioner with respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid settlement period of the Bombay Stock Exchange. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that in spite of repeated reminders petitioner did not make any payment of the aforesaid amount and the cheque which was issued was also dishonoured.