KRITIKA NAGPAL Vs. GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these five petitions, the petitioners have impugned the five separate arbitral awards rendered by the arbitral tribunal constituted under the provisions of bye-laws, the rules and regulations of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE) thereby allowing the claims made by the respondent and rejecting the counter claims made by the petitioners. In view of the fact that the facts in all the aforesaid matters are identical, learned counsel appearing for the parties have agreed to make submissions in the Arbitration Petition No.47 of 2009 and state that the judgment in the said arbitration petition would conclude the issues raised in the other four petitions. By consent of parties, all the five petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Since the learned counsel have made submissions in the Arbitration Petition No.47 of 2009, some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the petitions based on the facts of the said petition setout are as under :-

(2.) The respondent herein is one of the broker registered with the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Stock Exchange). It is the case of the petitioner that he was one of the high networth client of the respondent for last several years and had been carrying on trading in various transactions through the Chembur branch office of the respondent. The petitioner started effecting the transaction through the said Chembur office w.e.f. April 2007 on the F&O segment. The petitioner had provided 6500 shares of Reliance Petroleum Ltd. with the respondent as a security.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that in the evening of 16 th January, 2008, the respondent informed the petitioner that there was a shortfall of approximately Rs.3,50,000/- in her account. To meet the said shortfall, the petitioner immediately issued a cheque in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. In the morning of 18th January, 2008, the respondent informed the petitioner that the said cheque of Rs.4,00,000/-was misplaced in their office. The petitioner accordingly instructed her bankers to mark stop payment of the said cheque and issued another cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- in the name of the respondent. The said cheque had been encashed by the respondent.