NADENDLA GOPALA RAO Vs. STEEL CITY SECURITIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") is directed against the order of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam passed in O.P. No. 381 of 1999, dated 31-03-2003 whereunder the Court refused to set aside the award of the sole arbitrator passed in A.M. No. 103 of 1998, dated 10-12-1998.

(2.) The appellant entered into an agreement with the Steel City Securities Limited - respondent, which is a registered trading member of the National Stock Exchange of India ("NSE") on the capital market, on 25-10-1997 as a constituent to trade as a part of the member subject to certain conditions as enumerated in the agreement. The appellant as constituent member sold and purchased stocks of various Companies from Visakhapatnam terminal subject to periodical account with a specified code and subsequently fell out from the respondent and on finality of the accounts, he was shown to be due to a tune of Rs. 14,13,051.20 ps. when the appellant failed to get back the amount, the respondent addressed the Arbitration department of the SEBI for arbitration. The appellant objected to the appointment of the arbitrator contending that the dispute does not pertain to any conditions of SEBI as the dispute is between the appellant and the respondent with its own arbitral clause and the arbitrator appointed by SEBI has no jurisdiction. The appellant by his letter dated 01-10-1998 declined to participate in the arbitration proceedings on the ground that there was no dispute as regards the trades on the exchange. The dispute, which had arisen because of the respondent - company was backing out of an understanding, reached previously, that the liability for trades booked in the respondent's name would be written off in annual accounts and requested that the respondent be advised to have the dispute resolved by arbitration as provided in the articles of association of the company for disputes between the respondent - company and any one of its members. After issuing notice and receiving letter from the appellant herein the arbitrator held first hearing on 13-11-1998, on which date the appellant was absent and adjourned the proceedings to 26-11-1998. Meanwhile, the appellant sent another letter dated 14-11-1998 reiterating that there was "no dispute on the NSE trading account" which attracted arbitration and stated that appointment of the arbitrator was null and void. The arbitrator through his letter dated 16-11-1998 informed the appellant as under:

(3.) On passing the award the appellant moved the District Judge, Visakhapatnam under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the award, inter alia, contending that arbitrator will not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. In the notice dated 16-11-1998 the appellant was informed before taking a view on the contentions raised about the lack of jurisdiction, the arbitrator wishes to hear and examine such evidence, as the appellant may have to produce in support of his contention underlying the arguments and directed to present on 26-11-1998. But it is nowhere stated that he will further consider the dispute between the parties. Even assuming that the arbitrator decided that he has jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon him to call upon the appellant to file his written rebuttal statement to the claims set out by the respondent, but he went on ex-parte which is liable to be set aside.