Delhi District Court
Prudent Broking Services Private ... vs Mrs. Poonam Maheshwari on 21 May, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA,
DISTRICT JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
OMP(Comm) No.124/19
Prudent Broking Services Private Limited
401, Sears Tower, Gulabi Tekara,
Off CG Road Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380006.
.................Petitioner
vs.
Mrs. Poonam Maheshwari
A-46, Sector-61,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301.
................Defendant
Date of Institution : 08.07.2019
Arguments heard on : 06.03.2020 (Written submissions also
filed by both sides.
Decided on : 21.05.2020
Appearances : Sh. Abhinav Shrivastava, Ms. Sana Kamra and Sh.
Karan Chadha, Ld. Counsels for petitioner.
Respondent in person with her husband.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 against the Appellate Arbitral award dated 12.04.2019. The petitioner is a company Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.1 of 23 registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and a member of National Stock Exchange (NSE), Bombay Exchange (BSE), Metropolitan Stock Exchange (MSE) and Central Depository Services (India) Limited (CDSL) having registration in cash, equity derivatives and currency derivatives segment. It has approximately 40,000 clients all over India and executes retail transactions on behalf of its registered clients.
2. As per pleadings, respondent opened her account with the petitioner on 05.12.2017 and duly executed Know Your Customer (KYC) application form. The respondent appointed her husband as her authorized representative (AR) who used to maintain the account and trade on her behalf. The husband of the respondent / AR, is a well educated person being a Chartered Accountant. The rates of brokerage were clearly given in KYC form and duly agreed to by the respondent. The brokerage applicable in Currency Derivatives Option segment was at the rate of rupees 10/- per lot, which is well below the maximum prescribed amount of Rs.100/- per lot.
3. The respondent on seven occasions prior to 12.03.2018, Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.2 of 23 had undertaken trade in Options segment of currency derivatives, wherein brokerage at the rate of rupees 10/- per lot was charged by the petitioner. The relevant contract notes were also duly sent to the respondent.
4. On 12.03.2018, authorized representative of the respondent voluntarily placed an order for purchase of 1,40,000 lots of United States Dollars (USD), and acting upon the said instructions the petitioner executed the trade. The brokerage was charged by the petitioner at the rate of rupees 10/- per lot. The total amount receivable from the respondent qua the transaction so executed, came out to Rs.36,27,109.13/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred Nine and Thirteen Paise Only). The respondent disputed the said amount on the ground that respondent was lured into making the said transaction and the rate of brokerage at rupees 10/- per lot was never agreed. The respondent also made a complaint on 17.06.2018 to Investor Grievance Resolution Panel (IGRP) of National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) about alleged unfair and illegal trade practices by the petitioner and the order was passed on the said complaint of the respondent on 24.07.2018 and it was observed that trade was Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.3 of 23 executed with the consent of the respondent. The dispute could not be resolved and therefore arbitration was advised by Investor Grievance Resolution Panel (IGRP). The respondent invoked the arbitration clause on 19.09.2018, pursuant to which arbitration proceedings were commenced and were completed. The claim of the respondent was rejected by the arbitral tribunal vide award dated 17.12.2018. The arbitral tribunal passed the award in favor of the petitioner company.
5. On 28.12.2018, arbitral tribunal modified the award on the application of the respondent under Section 33 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking rectification.
6. The respondent filed an appeal challenging the award dated 17.12.2018 and also the order dated 28.12.2018. The appellate tribunal set aside the arbitral award vide its award dated 12.04.2019 and held that the respondent is entitled to refund of Rs.36,65,346/- alongwith interest.
7. The petitioner is challenging the award of appellate tribunal to the extent that brokerage has been calculated at the rate of 10 paisa per lot instead of rupees 10/- per lot and accordingly Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.4 of 23 appellate tribunal has erred in deciding the claim of the respondent. It is asserted that the disputed transaction was entered into with the consent of the respondent and accordingly brokerage has been duly charged as per agreed terms. The grounds pleaded by the the petitioner are as follows:
i. The award is against public policy as it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law and is in conflict with the most basic notions of justice.
ii. There are glaring contradictions in the Appellate Tribunal's own observations which prove that there is an error apparent on the face of the award.
iii. The Respondent had the knowledge of the brokerage rates applicable to Currency Derivatives Options segment. iv. The recordings dated 14.03.2018 and 22.03.2018 have no relevance to the issues involved in the present case. v. The Principle of Caveat Emptor is applicable to the present case.
vi. The observation of Appellate Tribunal that the DIS was sent separately from the KYC is based on incorrect application of law and is therefore, erroneous on the face of it. Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.5 of 23 vii. The rate of brokerage has been incorrectly inferred by the Appellate Tribunal as '10 Paisa' instead of '10 Rupees'. viii. The findings of Appellate Tribunal that there is huge difference between the brokerage charged by the Petitioner and that charged by other stock brokers is flawed as the standard market practice and maximum prescribed limits have not been taken into account while making the comparison. ix. The observations of Appellate Tribunal that the Respondent was coerced into withdrawing the complaint is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and hence, erroneous.
In terms of aforesaid pleadings, it has been prayed that Appellate Arbitral Award dated 12.04.2019 be set aside.
8. The matter has been contested on behalf of respondent and preliminary submissions have been filed on record. It is asserted therein that petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed particularly because brokerage tariff sheet does not show that the amount will be charged in Rupees. In the chart, Ps.(Paise) has been referred as denomination. The petitioner is a big company having its turnover in thousand crores whereas Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.6 of 23 respondents are senior citizens (retired) and live on their savings and pension. The petitioner company in a deceptive manner has taken their money as brokerage.
The arbitral tribunal has given detailed reasons for the award and same is neither arbitrary nor irrational. It is repeated that currency derivatives trading was never agreed between the parties at the rate of rupees 10/- per lot. The petitioner is guilty of concealment of material facts and not entitled to any relief.
9. I have heard Sh. Abhinav Shrivastava, Ms. Sana Kamra and Mr. Karan Chadha, Ld. Counsels for the petitioner and authorized representative / husband of the respondent, who personally argued the matter.
10. Ld. Counsels for the petitioner submitted that basis of the transaction between the parties is agreement dated 05.12.2017 and various transactions were conducted by the authorized representative / husband of the respondent. It is specifically contended that authorized representative of the respondent is well qualified person being Chartered Accountant and prior to having transactions through the petitioner company he was already dealing with multiple brokerage houses.
Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.7 of 23 The dispute between the parties is with respect to the transaction conducted on 12.03.2018. The respondent voluntarily placed an order for purchase of 1,40,000 lots of United States Dollars (USD) and was liable to pay brokerage at the rate of rupees 10/- per lot. Even in respect of prior transactions dated 25.01.2018, 30.01.2018, 02.02.2018, 05.02.2018, 08.02.2018, 14.02.2018 & 20.02.2018, similar brokerage rate was charged and no objection was raised by the petitioner. After every transaction, contract note was sent by the petitioner and at no point of time any dispute or objection was raised on behalf of the respondent. The respondents had due information about the nature of transaction and rate of brokerage and there was no occasion to mislead them, as also the petitioner is a reputed company and is not expected to indulge in malpractices. Information was being continuously communicated to the respondent with respect to the transactions. The respondents have been dishonest in their pleadings only because they suffered losses with respect to transaction dated 12.03.2018.
11. The Counsels in support of the arguments referred to the following judgments:
i. Associate Builders Vs. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49. (Emphasis has been put Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.8 of 23 on paragraphs no. 18, 27, 36 & 39).
ii. S.Sangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. NHAI (2019) 15 SCC
131. (Emphasis has been put on paragraphs no. 35 & 36) iii. K.P. Poulose Vs. State of Kerala & Anr (1975) 2 SCC 236. (Emphasis has been put on paragraphs no.5 & 6).
iv. Union of India & Anr Vs. Sanghu Chakra Hotels P. Ltd. & Anr 2008 SCC Online Del 912. (Emphasis has been put on paragraphs no. 21 &
22).
v. MSTC Ltd. Vs. Jain Traders & Ors 2011 (125) DRJ 435. (Emphasis has been put on paragraphs no. 26, 26 & 28).
vi. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. & Ors Vs. GMR Vemagiri Power Generation Ltd. & Anr (2018) 3 SCC 716. (Emphasis has been put on paragraph no.25).
vii.Som Dutt Builders NCC NEC (JV) Vs. National Highway Authority of India 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7689. (Emphasis has been put on paragraph no.17).
viii. Jain Narain Parasrampuria (Dead) & Ors. Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf & Ors (2006) 7 SCC 756. (Emphasis has been put on paragraphs no. 41, 42 & 47).
12. Per contra, husband / AR of the respondent submitted that award passed by appellate tribunal is just and reasonable. There is no legal basis to set aside the said award. The petitioner company Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.9 of 23 has misled on the issue of brokerage rate of currency derivatives trade Option and brokerage at the rate of rupees 10/- per lot has been incorrectly charged by the petitioner as also the same is not in line with the prevailing market rates. The respondent has also specifically pointed out the brokerage rates of top brokerage houses.
With respect to the transactions conducted prior to 12.03.2018, it is contended that since those transactions involved smaller amounts, respondent did not take due care to find out as to at what rate the brokerage was charged by the petitioner. According to the respondent, petitioner company has acted in a fraudulent manner and appellate tribunal has gone in detail about the relevant facts and has given appropriate findings in favour of the respondent.
13. Through the written submissions, respondent has raised the following points:
i. The petitioner started playing fraud from the beginning where they did not write the brokerage rate in the welcome mail (dated 05.12.2017) where all other brokerage rates were given.
Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.10 of 23 ii. The petitioner did not discuss the brokerage rate on the phone where they confirmed the credentials before account opening. This is usually done by the brokers as a normal routine practice.
iii. Intentionally charging the wrong brokerage at rate of rupees 10 per lot by ignoring the paisa mentioned in the brokerage table. Charging the wrong brokerage in initial few transactions hoping that small amount would go unnoticed, so that if it becomes a matter of dispute later on, they can harass the client by taking advantage of their age, financial health and creating un-necessary litigation. iv. The Petitioner fraudulently induced to enter into huge transaction by leveraging the respondents other portfolio created from their life long savings to loot them. Knowing the fact that respondent is a house wife and her husband is a retired senior citizen.
v. The malafide strategy was noted and elaborated by Appellate Arbitral Tribunal in their Order. On the basis of above, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.11 of 23
14. I have examined the awards (dated 17.12.2018 and 12.04.2019) in question, documents and pleadings of the parties and gone through written submissions placed on record on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent.
15. The scope of enquiry in section 34 proceeding is restricted to consideration whether any one of the grounds mentioned in section 34(2) exists for setting-aside the award.
16. Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act reads as under:
"34.Application for setting aside arbitral award-
(1)Recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub- section (3).
(2)An arbitral award may be set aside by the court only if-
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that-
(i) a party was under some incapacity, or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the party making the application was not given Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.12 of 23 proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or
(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or
(b) the court finds that-
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.
Explanation-Without prejudice to the generality of sub- clause (ii), it is hereby declared, for the avoidance of any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81."
For our purpose, it is not necessary to refer to the scope Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.13 of 23 of self explanatory Clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (2)
(a) of Section 34 of the Act and it does not require elaborate discussion. However, clause (v) of sub-section 2(a) and clause (ii) of sub-section 2(b) require consideration. For proper adjudication of the question of jurisdiction, we shall first consider what meaning could be assigned to the term 'Arbitral Procedure'.
17. Normally, the general principles are that Arbitrator is a Judge of the choice of the parties and his decision unless there is an error apparent on the face of the award which makes it unsustainable, is not to be set aside even if the court as a court of law would come to a different conclusion on the same facts. The court cannot reappraise the evidence and it is not open to the court to sit in appeal over the conclusion of the arbitrator. It is not open to the court to set aside a finding of fact arrived at by the arbitrator and only grounds on which the award can be cancelled are those mentioned in the Arbitration Act. Where the arbitrator assigns cogent grounds and sufficient reasons and no error of law or misconduct is cited, the award will not call for interference by the court in exercise of the power vested in it. Where the arbitrator is a qualified technical person and expert, who is competent to make assessment by taking into consideration the technical aspects of the matter, the court would generally not interfere with the award Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.14 of 23 passed by the arbitrator.
18. In the judgment titled as G. Ramchandra Reddy v. Union of India (2009) 6 SCC 414 Apex court asserted that courts should not normally interfere with the award of an arbitrator, unless there was a gross error apparent on the face of the record.
19. In Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerela & Anr. 1989 AIR 890, the observations of the Supreme Court have been that Court cannot substitute its own evaluation of the conclusion of law or fact to come to the conclusion that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties. Whether a particular amount was liable to be paid or damages liable to be sustained, was a decision within the competency of the arbitrator in this case. By purporting to construe the contract the court could not take upon itself the burden of saying that this was contrary to the contract and, as such, beyond jurisdiction.
20. In the case Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Saw Pipes Ltd. dated 17.04.2003 in Appeal (Civil) 7419/2001, Supreme Court considered the ambit and scope of Court's jurisdiction u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court discussed Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.15 of 23 the matter of arbitral procedure in terms of section 24, section 28 and section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and held:
"In our view, reading Section 34 conjointly with other provisions of the Act, it appears that the legislative intent could not be that if the award is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, still however, it couldn't be set aside by the Court. If it is held that such award could not be interfered, it would be contrary to basic concept of justice. If the arbitral tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act, it would mean that it has acted beyond its jurisdiction and thereby the award would be patently illegal which could be set aside under Section 34".
21. The ground of public policy has also been discussed in detail and the lordships held as follows:
"Therefore, in our view, the phrase 'Public Policy of India' used in Section 34 in context is required to be given a wider meaning. It can be stated that the concept of public policy connotes some matter which concerns public good and the public interest. What is for public good or in public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or public interest has varied from time to time. However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award/judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice. Hence, in our view in addition to narrower meaning given to the term 'public policy' in Renusagar's case (supra), it is required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently illegal. Result would be - award could be set aside if it is contrary to: -
Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.16 of 23
(a) fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(b) the interest of India; or
(c) justice or morality, or
(d) in addition, if it is patently illegal.
Illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegality is of trivial nature it cannot be held that award is against the public policy. Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the Court. Such award is opposed to public policy and is required to be adjudged void."
The conclusion has been drawn in the following manner:
"CONCLUSIONS:-
In the result, it is held that:-
A. (1) The Court can set aside the arbitral award under Section 34(2) of the Act if the party making the application furnishes proof that:-
(i) a party was under some incapacity, or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case;
or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;
2) The Court may set aside the award:-
(i) (a) if the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.17 of 23
(b) failing such agreement, the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with Part-I of the Act.
(ii) if the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with:-
(a) the agreement of the parties, or
(b) failing such agreement, the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with Part-I of the Act.
However, exception for setting aside the award on the ground of composition of arbitral tribunal or illegality of arbitral procedure is that the agreement should not be in conflict with the provisions of Part-I of the Act from which parties cannot derogate.
(c) If the award passed by the arbitral tribunal is in contravention of provisions of the Act or any other substantive law governing the parties or is against the terms of the contract.
(3) The award could be set aside if it is against the public policy of India, that is to say, if it is contrary to:-
(a) fundamental policy of Indian law;
(b) the interest of India; or
(c) justice or morality, or
(d) if it is patently illegal.
(4) It could be challenged:-
(a) as provided under Section 13(5); and
(b) Section 16(6) of the Act."
22. Coming to the case in hand, I have duly examined the grounds pleaded in the objection petition in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, legal position and submissions of both the sides.
Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.18 of 23
23. The petitioner company has filed the objection petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and has challenged the impugned award dated 12.04.2019 only to the extent that the brokerage has been calculated at 10 paise per lot instead of rupees 10/- per lot, which was mutually agreed between the parties. In this way, petitioner is mainly aggrieved in respect of findings given by Arbitrators as to the rate of brokerage. The dispute has been with respect to the transaction dated 12.03.2018, whereby respondent traded in currency derivatives through the petitioner company since respondent had opened account with the petitioner company for carrying out such transactions. The petitioner company has been entitled to brokerage charges in respect of each and every transaction carried out by the respondent through the petitioner. The agreement / terms between the parties is based on KYC documentation and same has been accepted by the both the sides.
24. The dispute arose with respect to the brokerage charges qua currency derivatives after the transaction dated 12.03.2018 was carried out. It has been the claim of the respondent that petitioner company, through its representatives, has committed Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.19 of 23 fraud and lured the respondent to enter into transaction of currency derivatives involving huge amount. The brokerage at the rate of rupees 10/- per lot has been charged which has not been as per the terms mentioned in the agreement. According to the respondent brokerage should have been charged at the rate of '10 paisa' per lot.
25. The petitioner company refuted the claim of the respondent on the ground that all the terms and conditions of the agreement were clear to the respondent as also AR of respondent has been qualified person being Chartered Accountant, having full knowledge of such transactions. On earlier occasions, similar transactions were carried out and brokerage at the rate of rupees 10/- per lot was charged to the knowledge of the respondent. The facts are evident from the various documents particularly the contract notes with respect to each and every transaction.
26. On examining the impugned award dated 12.04.2019 delivered by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal, I find that facts and submissions of both the sides have been discussed in detail and also the evidence put forth by both the sides has been appreciated in detail. Various communications including e-mails and recorded Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.20 of 23 conversations of the parties were considered to come to the conclusion that conduct of the petitioner company is questionable whereby the terms as to the rate of brokerage were not clearly communicated to the respondent and only after the completion of transaction dated 12.03.2018, the requisite KYC documents (hard copy) was provided. It has been specifically observed that persistent pressure was created upon the respondent to freeze de- mat account and therefore the respondent had no option but to make the payment. The dispute was immediately reported by the respondent to the authorities concerned. The conclusion drawn by Appellate Arbitral Tribunal has been that brokerage charges were not rupees 10/- per lot and KYC form's terms are vague in this regard.
27. After having duly examined entire relevant record, I am also of the opinion that contentions raised by the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunals have been justified. Substantial evidence in the form of documents and communications had also been adduced on record by the respondent to justify her claim. Perusal of the 'brokerage tariff sheet' which is a part of account opening form reveals that in respect of currency derivatives, brokerage charges at Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.21 of 23 the rate of 10 paise per lot are applicable. This can not be interpreted as rupees 10/- per lot, as in previous columns of the tariff sheet, rates have been shown in the denomination of P(Paise). The specific column of currency derivatives does not specifically mention 'rupees' before the rate 10.
28. It is clear that petitioner company has drawn tariff sheet in a manner that same is confusing to the client. By any stretch, it can not be taken as denoting rupees 10/- per lot in respect of currency derivatives. It is true that similar nature of transactions were carried out by the respondent and brokerage charges at the rate of rupees 10/- per lot were paid, but it seems plausible that since those transactions involved small amounts, respondent did not care to check the details and objections were not raised. This is natural and probable conduct of the respondent and therefore can not be taken as evidence of the fact that respondent was having knowledge of brokerage being charged at the rate of rupees 10/- per lot with respect to currency derivatives.
29. No error is apparent in respect of the impugned award. I do not find any contradictions in the observations and findings given by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal. The award is supported by sound Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.22 of 23 reasons and is based on due appreciation of evidence. The award is not against any public policy nor against the terms of the contract of the parties. No ground for interference is made out.
30. In the light of aforesaid observations, I conclude that award is based on logical reasons and there is no justification to interfere with the same. None of the grounds raised by the petitioner attracts section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.
31. The petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence the same is dismissed.
32. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
33. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 21st May, 2020 ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.23 of 23