NIRMAL BANG COMMODITIES PVT LTD Vs. S GEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE PetitionerBroker (originalRespondent) has challenged impugned award dated 27 February 2012 by which, the learned sole Arbitrator directed the Petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/ with interest @ 6% per annum. None appeared for the Respondent, though served. The matter is of the year 2012 and listed for final disposal. None appeared for the Respondent, even at the time of admission of this Petition. Therefore, I am inclined to dispose of the Petition as the Respondent failed to appear inspite of the service.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and after going through the documents placed on record, including the agreement and time to time issued and received contract notes, referring to the account transactions during the period from 14 March 2011 to 7 April 2011 and also for the fact that the Respondent even after these dates, carried out the transaction with the Petitioner on 13 June 2011 and 14 June 2011 and ultimately on 29 November 2011 filed the complaint, merely based upon the oral submission, in my view, goes to the root of the matter against the Respondent, specifically dealing with the transactions of this nature.

(3.) THE Respondent, having accepted and/or specifically unable to prove the nonreceipt of the hard copies of contract for the relevant period, merely by filing the complaint, just cannot claim/make the case on oral submissions, specifically by overlooking the timely communications so made referring to the contract and the transactions of the period in question. There is no dispute that the parties had entered into Member and Constituent Agreement on 31 January 2011. The Petitioner was appointed as Broker for handling derivatives transactions carried out on the MCX. Those terms and conditions were never denied, so also the mode and method of communication of the transactions. There are sufficient materials even admitted by the Respondent about the receipt of those written contract notes/communications. Therefore, the transactions which were entered into and/or held at the relevant time, in my view, just cannot be treated to be unauthorized. The timely communications if not objected, basically in view of nature of the transactions, the subsequent oral submissions just cannot be relied upon and taken note of in support of the monitory claims, so raised. On the contrary, no contra evidence placed, basically by the claimantRespondent, after filing the complaint as the averments were denied by the Petitioner in the written submissions. The basic burden, in my view, was upon the complainant to show that the transactions were unauthorized, specifically when the written communications, as recorded above, issued by the Petitioner at the appropriate time. The question is not of filing of complaint at such late stage, but still the conduct of the parties definitely relevant to consider such claims, based upon the foundation of oral submissions only.