Delhi District Court
Ram Avtar Bhageria (Now Deceased) vs M/S K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd on 7 August, 2018
In the Court of Ms. Vineeta Goyal: Additional District Judge
(South District) Saket Court Complex, New Delhi.
ARBT No. 267/2017
CNR No. : DLST010019422017
Ram Avtar Bhageria (now deceased)
Through his LRs
(A) Mrs. Satya Bhama Bhaggeria (wife)
(B) Sh. Madhu Sudan Bhaggeria (son)
Both R/o B375, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi
(C) Sh. Purshottam Bhaggeria (son)
R/o No. 2, Pine drive DLF Farms,
Chhatarpur, New Delhi
(D) Sh. Madhav Bhaggeria (son)
R/o B375, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi
(E) Ms. Rama Sutwala (daughter)
(F) Ms. Hemlata Agrawal (daughter)
R/o 8, Manorama Ganj, Agra Bombay Road
Indore, M.P. ........ Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
Having registered office at
C633, New Friends Colony
New Delhi ....... Respondent
Petitioner presented On : 08.11.2011
Arguments concluded On : 27.07.2018
Order Pronounced On : 07.08.2018
ARBT26717 Page no. 1 of 17
Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
Appearance : Sh. Binay Jha, Counsel for the petitioner.
Sh. Hemant Manjani, Counsel for respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner filed present petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the Act, 1996) against the award dated 05.08.2011, passed by Ld. Appellate Arbitral Tribunal, National Stock Exchange, New Delhi (Ld. Appellate Tribunal, for short) upholding the award dated 30.11.2010 passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
2. The petitioner has averred in the petition that in September, 2007, one Sh. K.K. Gupta approached him and introduced as subbroker of respondent for opening a trading account with the respondent with an assurance that the respondent would give best possible services to invest in the capital market to the petitioner. Believing the assurance and representation, the petitioner opened an account. The petitioner availed the services of the respondent for approximately four months in year 200708 from 26.09.2007 to 11.01.2008 during which the share transactions were comparatively of normal value and after January, 2008, the petitioner did not carry out share transaction till December, 2008. In the month of January, 2009 Sh. K.K. Gupta again approached the petitioner with the proposal that he should give money to the respondent and respondent would give him assured return of 2% per month on that amount. Sh. K.K. Gupta was also to charge an amount equivalent to 0.25% per month out of said monthly returns as his renumeration for introducing the transaction. The respondent also told the petitioner that he could even provide the amount in installments to observe the progress of his investments and assured the petitioner that return as promised to him will not be effected ARBT26717 Page no. 2 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
by fluctuation in the capital market. The petitioner agreed to deposit money with the respondent and issued a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/ dated 02.02.2009 in the name of respondent. Thereafter, two more cheques of Rs.5,00,000/ each dated 16.02.2009 and 05.03.2009 respectively were issued in the favour of respondent. As such, total amount of Rs.20,00,000/ was deposited by the petitioner with the respondent. The petitioner further averred that the respondent did not pay return of 2% per month on Rs.20,00,000/ despite repeated follow up, rather to utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, he received a statement of accounts vide letter dated 11.05.2009 showing a debit of Rs.3,33,594.53/ in his account. The petitioner tried to contact Sh. K.K. Gupta but in vain. At that time, the petitioner realized that respondent, its director and Sh. K.K. Gupta had committed fraud and cheated with the petitioner. It is averred by the petitioner that prior to the letter dated 11.05.2009 the petitioner never received any statement of accounts. The petitioner received a notice dated 30.06.2009 and upon receipt of the same, the petitioner through his lawyer vide letter dated 07.07.2009 asked for certain documents so as to file a proper reply, however, no document was ever received by the petitioner. The petitioner got served a reply dated 12.08.2009 upon the respondent whereby asking to refund the amount of Rs.20,00,000/ alongwith agreed return of Rs.2,00,000/ per month from the date of payment till its full realization. It is averred that the respondent thereafter, with an intention to avoid its liability filed a claim before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. The petitioner filed written statement and counterclaim and in a hearing held on 03.08.2010 before Ld. Arbitrator, the petitioner raised various issues and Ld. Arbitrator was pleased to allow the petitioner to raise the issues and in the same order, a clarification was also sought from NSE as to the guidelines on the limit of margin money. The petitioner filed an application ARBT26717 Page no. 3 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
dated 22.09.2010 before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator and also filed an application dated 23.11.2010, however, the Ld. Arbitrator completely ignored the said application and the application remained undisposed and passed award dated 30.11.2010. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner challenged the said award before the Ld. Appellate Tribunal and on 05.08.2011, Ld. Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner and upheld the award passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
3. The respondent contested the petition preferred by petitioner and filed reply interalia pleading that upon bare perusal of impugned award, it clearly establishes that Ld. Arbitrators in Appellate Tribunal had gone minutely on each and every aspect of the case and passed well reasoned award. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that under Section 34 of Act 1996, this court cannot go into merits of the case and/or review the evidence on record of the Ld. Arbitrator. Under the Act of 1996, the Court thus retains limited powers in respect of the matter that affect public policy or the public interest and in other words, a petition under Act, 1996 for setting aside can be made only if there is serious irregularity causing substantial injustice to the petitioner such as where the award was obtained by fraud or the award is contrary to the law. It is further submitted that petitioner opened a trading account with the respondent to do the trading business and for opening an account with the respondent, a MemberClient Agreement dated 25.09.2007 (hereinafter referred to as MCA) was executed. The petitioner executed the MCA after reading each and every condition mentioned therein and a copy of MCA was provided to the petitioner at that time itself. It is further submitted that details of each and every transaction carried out by petitioner was mentioned in detailed statement provided to him and filed alongwith statement of claim ARBT26717 Page no. 4 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
by the respondent and it was the petitioner who deposited some more amount in his trading account to carry out trading activities and when the transaction carried out by the petitioner converted into losses, the petitioner came up with a concocted story of fixed return of 2% per month. The petitioner was well aware of transactions carried out by him as the petitioner was duly receiving the contact notes of the transactions carried out by him on daily basis. The respondent admitted that petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.20,00,000/ in his account by way of three cheques but at the same time it is submitted that amount was submitted for the trading purposes and there was no assurance given either by Sh. K.K. Gupta or anyone on behalf of the respondent with regard to assured return of 2% on the amount deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner never raised any dispute with regard to any of the transactions carried out by him. It is further submitted that when the petitioner failed to clear the debit balance of his account despite giving several opportunities, the respondent having being left with no other option, issued a legal notice directing the petitioner to clear the debit balance of his account. The respondent denied that the trades executed in the trading account of the petitioner were unauthorized or without the consent and instructions of the petitioner. The respondent also denied that there was any collusion between respondent and K.K. Gupta and it is further denied that the applications dated 22.09.2010 was not dealt with, however, submitted that impugned award clearly demonstrate that each of the contentions of the petitioner were discussed and adjudicated by Ld. Appellate Tribunal while passing the award.
ARBT26717 Page no. 5 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the petitioner preferred the present petition on various grounds including that the impugned award is bad in law and wrong in facts; that the Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the issues raised by the parties cannot be decided without examination and crossexamination of the witnesses of the parties and by proving the documents placed by respondent; that the Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the said K.K. Gupta, Company Secretary in practice and therefore cannot be an employee of the respondent; that the respondent with malafide intention has claimed to have sent these documents through a fictitious email ID i.e. [email protected] with which the petitioner has no concern and that the Ld. Arbitrator as well as Ld. Appellate Tribunal did not consider the application dt. 22.09.2010 and 23.11.2010 of the petitioner.
4.1. Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that as per the regulations of National Stock Exchange governing such case, the trader is bound to maintain records of such instructions and authorizations including details with regard to the identity of a person who gave such instructions with time and date and also the identity of the person receiving such instructions. Since the petitioner has disputed the trade, the onus to prove that instructions or authorization was indeed upon the respondent and admittedly the onus has not been discharged by the respondent and despite an application submitted by the petitioner, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator as well as Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to call upon the respondent to discharge the onus. The applications filed by petitioner before Ld. Sole Arbitrator has not been dealt with and no direction on these applications has been passed. The impugned award has been passed in complete negation of principles of fair and reasonable ARBT26717 Page no. 6 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
opportunity being granted to the petitioner to meet the case as presented against him. Ld. Counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon judgment titled Angel Brooking Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sharda Kapur & ors. pronounced on 27.05.2014.
5. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned award passed by Ld. Appellant Tribunal. There is no patent irregularities committed by the Ld. Appellant Tribunal rather Ld. Appellant Tribunal took great pain in considering in detail every aspect of matter and passed the award on the basis of documentary evidence that the parties adduced before the Tribunal and relied upon judgment titled National Highway Authority of India v. Gammon India Ltd. pronounced on 21.08.2014.
6. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through arbitral record.
6.1. Section 34 of the Act, 1996 lays down provision for moving application for setting aside arbitral award. The relevant portion of Section 34 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 subsection (3).
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if
(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 ARBT26717 Page no. 7 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
(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: 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 subclause (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.
The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 provides:
"18. In Section 34 of the Principal Act:
(i) In subsection (2), in clause (b), for the Explanation, the following Explanations shall be substituted, namely:
(i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81; or
(ii) It is in contravention with the fundamental policy of India law:
or
(iii) It is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
Explanation 2 - For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute" (ii) after subsection (2) the following sub section shall be inserted, namely: ARBT26717 Page no. 8 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
"2(A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award: Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence."
6.2 In the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.v.Saw Pipes Ltd. reported in 2003 5 SCC 705, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after reviewing a plethora of decisions held in paragraph 31 as follows: "31. 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:
(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."
In the same judgment, in paragraph 74 the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as follows: ARBT26717 Page no. 9 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
"74. 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,
(b) failing such agreement, the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with PartI 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 PartI 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 PartI 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: ARBT26717 Page no. 10 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
(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."
6.3. In the case of Mcdermott International INCv.Burn Standard Co. Ltd. reported in 2006 11 SCC 181 in paragraphs 52, 58, 59 and 60 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "52. The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it.
6.4 In the case of Union of India vs. Associated Construction Co. reported in 2008 (2) Arbitration Law Reported 526, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment held as follows:
"7. Having considered the arguments raised by the Counsel for the parties and after examining the decisions cited at the bar, I am of the view that this Court, in the facts of the present case, cannot have a relook into the conclusions arrived at by the arbitrator insofar as Claim No. 2 is concerned. This is so because the arbitrator has interpreted Clause 4.4.2(a) in a particular manner and this court would not interfere with such an interpretation. It is important to note that while considering the objections under Section 34 of the ARBT26717 Page no. 11 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
said Act this court does not sit as a court of appeal. As such, each of the claims need not be considered as if the Court were examining a first appeal against a judgment and/or a decree. The arbitrator has examined the evidence and has come to a certain finding or fact. The learned arbitrator has also interpreted Clause 4.4.2(a) in a particular manner and this court would not substitute its views in place of the arbitrator's in such a case.
The award must be so patently illegal that it goes to the root of the matter. If the illegality is of a trivial nature, the award cannot be said to be against public policy. The award must be so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the Court. It is then that such an award can be said to be opposed to Public Policy of India. I do not find the present award to contain any such patent illegality, much less an illegality which goes to the root of the matter. The award is also not of such a kind that it shocks the conscience of the Court. The arbitral tribunal has merely interpreted Clauses 32.1 and 45.1 in a manner which is plausible. This being the case, no interference is called for."
6.5 In the case of Himachal Joint Venture vs. Panilpina World Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008 (3) Arbitration Law Reporter 497, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that when the view taken by the Arbitrator is a plausible view, it is not permissible for the court to interfere with the Arbitrator's view merely because another view of the matter is possible. It is not permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence placed before the Arbitrator. It is wellsettled that the Arbitrator is the best Judge of the quality as well as quantity of evidence and it will not be for the Court to take upon itself a task of being a Judge of the evidence before the Arbitrator. It was also observed that another factor that cannot be lost sight of is that each of the three members of the Arbitral Tribunal were wellexperienced in their trade. The parties must have chosen them consciously so that they could draw upon their special knowledge in ARBT26717 Page no. 12 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
resolving the disputes between the parties. The knowledge and experience of the Members of the Tribunal should be given credence.
6.6. In case of Mediterranean & Eastern Export Co. Ltd. v. Fortress Fabrics Ltd., [1948] 2 All ER 186, it was observed as follows:
'A man in the trade who is selected for his experience would be likely to know and indeed to be expected to know the fluctuations of the market and would have plenty of means of informing himself or refreshing his memory on any point on which he might find it necessary so to do. In this case according to the affidavit of sellers they did take the point before the Arbitrator that the Southern African market has slumped. Whether the buyers contested that statement does not appear but an experienced Arbitrator would know or have the means of knowing whether that was so or not and to what extent and I see no reason why in principle he should be required to have evidence on this point any more than on any other question relating to a particular trade. It must be taken I think that in fixing the amount that he has, he has acted on his own knowledge and experience. The day has long gone by when the Courts looked with jealousy on the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators. The modern tendency is in my opinion more especially in commercial arbitrations, to endeavour to uphold Awards of the skilled persons that the parties themselves have selected to decide the questions at issue between them. If an Arbitrator has acted within the terms of his submission and has not violated any rules of what is so often called natural justice the Courts should be slow indeed to set aside his award.' This in our opinion is an appropriate attitude."
6.7. In case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 2316, it was observed by Lordships that Arbitrator is the sole Judge of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence. It may be possible that on the same evidence, the Court might have arrived at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the arbitrator but that by itself is no ground for setting aside the award of the arbitrator.
ARBT26717 Page no. 13 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
6.8. In case of State of Orissa Vs. Dandasi Sahu, AIR 1988 SC 1791, it was observed that it is wellsettled that when the parties choose their own arbitrator to be the Judge in dispute between them, they cannot, when the award is good on the face of it, object to the decision either upon law or on facts. Therefore, when arbitrator commits a mistake either in law or in fact in determining the matters referred to him, where such mistake does not appear on the face of the award and the documents appended to or incorporated so as to form part of it, the award will neither be remitted nor set aside.
6.9. It is clear from above that the award would not be open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or failed to appreciate facts, as under the law, the arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the disputes between the parties. The Court will not sit in appeal over the award nor reappreciate the evidence for the purpose of finding whether on the facts and circumstances, the award in question could have been made. Unless there is any allegation of moral misconduct against the arbitrator with reference to the award and where the arbitrator has not been superseded.
7. In the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned award dated 05.08.2011 passed by Ld. Appellate Tribunal against the award of Ld. Sole Arbitrator dated 30.11.2010. The petitioner has entered into a MCA on 25.09.2007 with the respondent who is admittedly engaged in the business of providing services for trading in securities by providing electronic platforms to its clients. At this point, it is need to be noted that the above mentioned MCA is infact the master agreement providing of each kind of details governing the relationship ARBT26717 Page no. 14 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
between the parties. The mutual rights and liabilities would necessarily follow from this agreement and this agreement bipartite where the petitioner is on one side and the respondent is on other side. The dispute between the parties has arisen because of trade happening between the period February, 2009 and April, 2009. In this period, the claim of the petitioner is that at the behest of one Sh. K.K. Gupta, he deposited Rs.20,00,000/ with an assured return @2% per month and it is claimed that this person was subbroker of the respondent. On the contrary, the respondent has alleged that this person was in his employment. It is a matter of record that due to transactions in the account of petitioner there was loss which resulted into liability of Rs.3,51,519.49 after whipping off the amount of Rs.20,00,000/. Before the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal the contention of the petitioner was that he deposited Rs.20,00,000/ with the respondent upon assurance of Sh. K.K. Gupta that respondent would pay him assured return of 2% per month on the amount and no details of trade was provided to him and further alleged email does not belong to him. It is evident from impugned award that Ld. Arbitrators have elaborately considered various contentions by holding that only document executed between the parties is abovementioned MCA and there is no separate or other agreement between the parties. Therefore, the assumption of the petitioner that amount of Rs.20,00,000/ would get a separate treatment was erroneous. It was also observed by Ld. Arbitrators that petitioner is an educated person holding high position in a reputed company, therefore, he must also be aware that it was not possible for anyone including a trading member to give a fixed return of 2% per month on the amount deposited by a client if the deposited money was to be used in trading in stock market. It has been elaborately discussed that the petitioner for a short period in the past has conducted trading of shares using the same account between the ARBT26717 Page no. 15 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
period September, 2007 to January, 2008. Ld. Arbitrator has also dealt with the effect of status of Sh. K.K. Gupta either being employee or being a subbroker at length. There cannot be any patent illegality in the findings that in either capacity the respondent could not be held responsible for the trade of petitioner unless there is tripartite agreement where the arrangement is changed. The MCA has been entered with the petitioner showing Sh. K.K. Gupta as introducer and not as subbroker. In this light, the Ld. Arbitrator has refused to take any evidence in that regard because it would not affect the right of parties. The Ld. Arbitrator has also considered the contentions of the petitioner in respect of non communication of contract notes and wrong email by holding that in passed between the period September, 2007 to January, 2008 same mode has been used for sending communication of the trade to the petitioner and there was no objection. Secondly, the silence of the petitioner till May, 2010, when he did not receive communication of Sh. K.K. Gupta has been taken by Ld. Arbitrators as being in full knowledge of the trades. Ld. Arbitrators too have observed that if the opportunity of the oral evidence has not been provided by Ld. Sole Arbitrator, it will not bring any infirmity in the findings given by Ld. Sole Arbitrator. It was also observed that there is substantial evidence besides the conduct of petitioner to show that he had full knowledge of the trades being executed in his account. Ld. Arbitrators also considered that clarification asked for by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator from NSE was not necessary. The amount of money deposited depended upon the volume of the trade/transaction month to month obligation. There is no guideline or limit fixed under the rules and regulations of SEBI or the exchange for clients to deposit the amount in their account to meet the market/financial obligations arising out of trade.
ARBT26717 Page no. 16 of 17 Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.
7.2. In totality of factual circumstances, it can be culled out that petitioner (now deceased) was aware of the transactions being carried through his account and Ld. Arbitrators after appreciating all the material available on record, passed the impugned order.
8. It transpires from above discussion that Ld. Arbitrator has dealt with the matter in detail after giving cogent reasons and it nowhere reflects that it is against public policy or there is any patent illegality. Moreover, the law is well settled that once the findings and the conclusions are possible and plausible, the court hearing objections under Section 34 of Act, 1996 will not substitute its view from that of impugned award. Otherwise also, this court is not sitting in appeal against the impugned award and this court is not required to reappreciate or reevaluate the evidence led before Ld. Arbitrator, in these circumstances, there is nothing evident from the impugned award to show that it suffers from any infirmity which calls for interference, accordingly, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2018.08.08
Order Pronounced on 16:35:18 +0530
07.08.2018 (Vineeta Goyal)
Additional District Judge03
South/ Saket Courts/ New Delhi
ARBT26717 Page no. 17 of 17
Ram Avtar Bhageria v. K & A Securities Pvt. Ltd.