Delhi District Court
M/S Swastika Investment Ltd vs Mr. Dwarka Das Ratra on 9 March, 2015
CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE01:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY :MS. PINKI
Civil Suit No. 3018/2014
In the matter of:
M/s Swastika Investment Ltd.
Through Authorised representative
Mr. Rajkumar s/o Mr. Gangaramji Malviya
Administrative office - 48, Jawara Compound
M.Y.H. Road, Indore, M.P.
.....Petitioner/Applicant
(Through Mr. Hemant Purohit, Advocate)
Versus
1. Mr. Dwarka Das Ratra
R/o A701, Sanmati Kunj
Plot No. 19A, Sector 6,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075
2. Jagvinder Bir Singh (Arbitrator)
National Stock Exchange India Ltd.
4th Floor, Jeevan Vihar Building
Parliament Street,
New Delhi 110 001
.....Respondents/Non Applicants
(Through Mr. Khushhal Mohal, Advocate)
Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 1 of 22
CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015
Date of Institution of petition : 21.11.2014
Date of reserving judgment : 05.03.2015
Date of pronouncement : 09.03.2015
J U D G M E N T:
1. This is a petition under section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, by the petitioner, seeking setting aside of Award dated 29.09.2014, passed by the sole Arbitrator (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned Award"). The record from the office of learned Arbitrator has been received. OBJECTOR'S CASE
2. The objections have been filed on 21.11.2014. As per the objector, the learned Arbitrator has passed the impugned Award on 29.09.2014. The statement of claim filed by the applicant has been accepted in toto without any reasonable sufficient ground and against principles of natural justice. The learned Arbitrator has committed gross mistake. The impugned Award is against the law and documentary evidence produced on record. According to the statement of claim of respondent no. 1 he himself was doing all the trading of buying and selling of shares in his account through interest and in currency derivatives segment online and online trading is done only when the account holder gives his password. Respondent has given his password for every trading and each trading was done as per the instructions of the respondent no. 1 and it was in his knowledge and without password, no trading would be done by anybody in his trading Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 2 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 account. Trading in the disputed account was taken as per the instructions of respondent no.1. Respondent no. 1 has sent his request for change of his Email ID and mobile number to the objector and on 23.10.2013 digital contract note, bill. The certifications of trading was sent to him on his new Email address i.e. [email protected] and new mobile no.9350783830. Respondent no. 1 has received these SMS logs and E.C.N. Log. Objector has filed the E.C. N. log and SMS log sheet as documentary evidence and has proved them. Inspite of this the learned Arbitrator has ignored those important documents and without giving any reason and not accepting the important documents has passed the impugned Award. Respondent no. 1 has filed statement of claim on the basis of illegal, false and baseless statements alleging those disputes trading to be unauthorised trading and has tried to protect himself from his liability. From the modification request form dated 23.10.2014 it was proved that the respondent had filed this application for change of Email ID and mobile number and with respect to that application only, contract note, bill and trading certifications of each trading were sent to the respondent no. 1, which were duly received by him. It is pertinent to mention here that impugned Award was passed on 29.09.2014. Therefore, modifications request form of 23.10.2014 is of no help.
Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 3 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 RESPONDENT NO.1 CASE
3. Respondent no.1 contested the petition and filed the reply. He has submitted that the objections have been filed with malafide intention and is dilateray tactics of the objector to harass the respondent, who is a senior citizen aged about 72 years in blatant and gross misuse of the process of law as no grounds whatsoever are made out as per Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to interfere with the impugned Award. The objector after playing fraud with the life time savings of respondent no. 1 are again out to harass respondent no. 1 and procrastinate discharge of lawful liability of the applicant to respondent no. 1. It has been submitted that the applicant have not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the court. As per the respondent no. 1 there is no error apparent on the face of impugned Award. The objections are not covered in any of the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996. The impugned Award is not in violation of the statutory provisions, and as such cannot at all be against the public interest. The impugned Award is not likely to adversely effect the administration of justice in any manner There are no such specific pleadings of the petitioner in this effect. The impugned Award is not contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement. There is no breach of agreed procedure. The contract between the parties was not Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 4 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 illegal and there is no bias of the learned Arbitrator. The claim is not barred by the limitation. The impugned Award is based on just interpretations of the terms and conditions of the contract therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned Award is in conflict with public policy of India.
ISSUE
4. The matter in controversy revolves around the following issue:
''Whether the award is liable to be set aside in view of the objections?'' FINDINGS
5. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 Mr. Khushhal Mohal, Advocate, have been heard and considered. Despite opportunity no one has argued on behalf of petitioner/objector.
6. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 has submitted that objections are not covered under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 5 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015
7. This court relies on the following judgments : i. Government of NCT Delhi Vs. Khem Chand,2003 (2) RAJ 437 ii. India Tourism and Development Corporation Vs. T.P. Sharma, 2003 (3) Recent Arbitration Judgments 360 iii. Sh. M.C. Katosh Vs. Union of India & Ors.,2005 (1) AD Delhi 1979 iv. Olympus Superstructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meena Vijay Khatana & Ors.,AIR 1999 SC 2102.
v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.Vs. Buddiraja Electrical, 2003 (2) RAJ 216 (Delhi) vi. Renu Sagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs. General Electric Co., AIR 1994 SC 860 vii. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003, Supreme Court, 2629 viii. Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.,AIR 2005 SC 207 ix. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. M/s Annapurna Construction, (2003)8 SCC 154 x. Kesar Enterprises Vs. D.C.M. Shriram Industries Ltd. & Another 2000 VII Apex Decisions (Delhi) 794 xi. Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. Vs. Auro Industries Limited, 2002 VII Apex Decisions (Delhi) 194 xii. Secretary Irrigation Department, Govt. of Orissa and Others etc. Vs. G.C. Roy, 1992 (1) Arbitration Law Reporter, 145
8. At this stage, it will be relevant to know the legal position regarding the scope of objection under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it will be in fitness of things to reproduce Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 6 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which provides the ground for setting aside an Arbitral award. The relevant provisions reads as under: ''2(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 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 Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 7 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part.''
9. In judgment titled Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi Vs. Khem Chand (Supra), it was observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Chaturvedi of our High Court by relying upon AIR 1963 SC 677 that a Court should approach an award to support it if it is reasonable, possible rather than to dispute it, by calling it illegal. The law in this regard as it existed prior to enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 still holds the field. It was further observed that the jurisdiction of the Court when called upon to decide the objections raised by a party against an arbitral award is limited, as expressly indicated in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal and examine the correctness of the award on merits with reference to the material produced before the arbitrator, it can not sit in appeal over the view of the arbitral by Secretary Irrigation Department, Govt. of Orissa and Others etc. Vs. G.C. Roy reexamining and reassessing the material. Observations made by Russel were reproduced as follows: ''It is not misconduct on the part of an Arbitrator to come to an erroneous decision, whether his error is one of fact or law, and whether or not his findings of fact are supported by evidence. It may, however, be misconduct if there are gross errors in failing to hear or improperly receiving Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 8 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 evidence.''
10. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor in India Tourism and Development Corporation Vs. T.P. Sharma (Supra) and it was held that findings of the arbitrator on the factual matrix need not to be interfered with as the Court does not sit in appeal and the Courts are also refrained from reappreciating or reevaluating the evidence or the material before the arbitrator unless perversity is writ large on the face of the award or the award suffers from the vice of jurisdictional error, sanctity of award should always be maintained.
11. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble High Court in Sh. M.C. Katosh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supra) wherein it was held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Jain that arbitrator being sole and final judge of fact and the Court is bound by the findings of learned Arbitrator and cannot review them unless unsupported by evidence or unless appears from award itself that there was no evidence to support findings.
12. As a matter of fact, the contention and tenure of the objections raised against the award in question appear more akin to those contemplated under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, than the ones under the new Act. The scope of Section 34 of the Act which provides for setting aside of the award is Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 9 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 far less than under Section 30 and 33 of the old Act as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Olympus Superstructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meena Vijay Khatana & Ors. (Supra).
13. The grounds for setting aside an arbitral award stated in Section 34 of the Act are exhaustive and Court can set aside an arbitral award only if ''one of the grounds mentioned therein is found''. Objection raised against the award in the present case even, falls short of making out any of the grounds stated in Section 34 of the Act.
14. In Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Buddiraja Electrical (Supra), it has been held that the arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction and the award was against public policy of India. Clause 2(b)(ii) of the Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that the arbitral award, if it is found to be in conflict with public policy, same may be set aside by the court. An explanation is added to the provision providing that an award shall be treated to be in conflict with public policy of India if making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81 of the Act. This expression ''public policy of India'' was considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Renu Sagar Power Co. Ltd., Vs. General Electric Co. (Supra) where it was held that if the award is found to be contrary to fundamental policy of Indian Law or Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 10 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 Indian interest or justice and morality, the same can also be held to be contrary to public policy of India. On facts, it was found that the arbitrator had recorded his reasons for coming to the conclusion for allowing the claim and no specific case should be made out to prove and establish that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction in making the award. As such, same cannot be said to be in any manner coming within the ambit of the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
15. Supreme Court has held in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (Supra), wherein the court observed 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 fact of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award/judgement/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice. Hence, in our view in addition to narrower meaning given to the term ''public Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 11 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 policy'' in Renu Sagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644 it is required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently illegal. The result would be award could be set aside if it is contrary to;
(a) Fundamental policy of Indian Law, or
(b) the interest of Indian: or
(c) justice or morality; or
(d) in addition, it is patently Illegally 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.''
16. In judgment titled Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (Supra), it has been held vide para28 that: ''In Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. Vs. Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Another, (Supra), this court after considering several decisions on the point held that if an Arbitrator has acted arbitrarily, irrationally, capriciously or beyond the terms of the agreement, as award passed by him can be set aside. In such cases the Arbitrator can be said to have acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred on him.''
17. Vide para29 of Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (Supra) it has been held that: Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 12 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 ''In U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Searsole Chemicals Ltd. (Supra), that: where the Arbitrator had applied his mind to the pleadings, considered the evidence adduced before him and passed an award the court could not interfere by reappraising the matter as if it were an appeal.''
18. Vide para30 of Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (Supra) it has been held that: ''In Indu Engineering & Textiles Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority (Supra) that: ''An Arbitrator is a judge appointed by the parties and as such the award passed by him is not to be lightly interfered with.''
19. Vide para31 of Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (Supra) it has been held that: ''In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. M/s Annapurna Construction (Supra) that: there is distinction between error within jurisdiction and error in excess of jurisdiction. The role of the Arbitrator is to arbitrate within the terms of the contract and if he acts in accordance with the terms of the agreement, his decision cannot be set aside. It is only when he travels beyond the contract that he acts in excess of jurisdiction in which case the award passed by him becomes vulnerable and can be questioned in an appropriate court.''
20. In para 8 of judgment titled Kesar Enterprises Vs. D.C.M. Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 13 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 Shriram Industries Ltd. & Another (Supra) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen, Judge Delhi High Court has dealt with case titled M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd., reported as A.I.R. 1999, SC 565 in the following words: ''............ the following passage from M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. reported as A.I.R. 1999, SC 565 wholly clarifies the view of the Apex Court: ''The 1996 Act is very different from the Arbitration Act, 1940. The provisions of this Act have, therefore, to be interpreted and construed independently and in fact reference to 1940 Act may actually read to misconception. In other words, the Provisions of 1996 Act have to be interpreted being uncommenced by the principles underlying the 1940 Act. In order to get help in construing these provisions it is very relevant to refer to the UNCITRAL MODEL LAW rather than 1940 Act.''
21. Para - 9 of judgment titled Kesar Enterprises Vs. D.C.M. Shriram Industries Ltd. & Another (Supra) reads as under: ''These provisions have been amended clearly with a view to circumscribe to a narrow point, the objections that can be entertained where an Arbitral Award is assailed. To widen the scope of Section 34 would be ignoring and setting at nought the legislative intent, which perhaps was itself a response to the judicial lament extracted above.'' Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 14 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015
22. Para - 10 of judgment titled Kesar Enterprises Vs. D.C.M. Shriram Industries Ltd. & Another (Supra) reads as follows : ''In these circumstances, I am unable to read and interpret the words ''public policy of India'', as being at all attracted in cases where a particular party alleges that a point was raised before the Arbitrator but not subsequently dealt with by him in the Award. I am in no manner of doubt, that such a conduct, even if it did happen, would not amount to an infraction of public policy, or for that matter, the rules of natural justice.''
23. Para - 16 of judgment titled Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. Vs. Auro Industries Limited, (Supra) reads as follows: ''Any finding of the Arbitrator either on factual or on legal matrix if on subsequent examination is found to be wholly unsound the award is liable to be set aside as it amounts to factual or legal misconduct. In ordinary course the Court does not sit in Appeal nor is it required to re appreciate the evidence and the material on record produced before the Arbitrator. Even if there are erroneous findings of the Arbitrator as to the facts the Court should always refrain from interfering with it. What should irk the Court is that perversity of illegality should be writ large on the fact of the award.'' Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 15 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015
24. In view of the various authoritative pronouncements discussed above it is clear that this court is not sitting in appeal against the award passed by the sole arbitrator.
25. A perusal of impugned Award dated 29.09.2014 passed by Mr. Jagvinder Bir Singh, learned Arbitrator shows that, he was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by the National Stock Exchange of India Limited, to consider and adjudicate the dispute and differences between Mr. Dwarka Das Ratra and M/s Swastika Investment Ltd., the Objector. The claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/ on the ground that he is doing the transactions in cash segments only and has invested in equities of the various companies. He has been buying and selling the shares through internet only and has been making the payment on regular basis. He insisted that he never dealt in trading in derivative segment or in currency segment. From 24.10.2013, the respondent started trading in currency derivatives segment without the knowledge of the claimant, which was continued till 03.01.2014 due to which claimant had suffered loss of Rs. 2,75,000/. He was receiving SMS for all its earlier trade from 04.09.2013 till 24.10.2013 on his mobile No. 9810486876 and after 24.10.2013 there was no SMS on his mobile number. On inquiry, he was told by the objector that all the SMS's for the currency trade carried from 24.10.2013 to 03.01.2014 was sent to his Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 16 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 new mobile No. 9350783830. The claimant had stated that earlier he was receiving the trade confirmation on Email ID [email protected], which was also stopped after 24.10.2013. The objector told him that Email ID for all his trades, done between the period from 24.10.2013 to 03.01.2014 was sent to his new Email ID [email protected] which was also not satisfied with the services of trading member and asked the objector to close down his account. The compliance officer of Objector sent a mail, asking him to clear the Debit Balance in his account of Rs. 2,75,000/ which he has occurred due to the trading in currency derivatives segment and he further refused to transfer his shares to his D'Mat account unless the said amount is paid to the objector. On that basis the claimant filed an Arbitration application before learned Arbitrator.
26. The Objector has taken the defence that all the currency derivative segment in the claimants account have been done online by the claimant himself since only the claimant has got the password and no one else can trade in his account. All the trading confirmations of the trades in currency derivative segment were sent to the claimant by the objector on regular basis. Claimant was duly informed about his all transactions and all the trading confirmations i.e. digital contract notes, bill has been regularly sent to the claimant on his designated new Email ID i.e. [email protected] and at his new mobile Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 17 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 number 9350783830, which was provided by the claimant in the modification request form dated 23.10.2013 submitted by him.
27. The learned Arbitrator, after considering the facts has opined that the claimant in his application stated that he deals in only the purchase and sale of shares and not in trading. Statement of account filed by the objector clearly shows that there were no transactions during the period from 23.08.2013 to 21.10.2013 however 44 transactions were carried during the period from 24.10.2013 to 03.01.2014 by the claimant in currency derivative segment resulting in a net loss of Rs. 2,75,000/ to the claimant. The objector had submitted that the confirmation of all the transactions had been sent to the claimant in his new mobile number and new Email ID which was changed by the applicant himself vide modification request form submitted by him on 23.10.2013. The claimant denied submitting such modification request form to change his mobile number and Email ID. Claimant mentioned that he is not using even the new Email ID. He has mentioned that in his KYC form he has mentioned his mobile number as 9810486876 and his Email ID as [email protected] .
He has submitted that he has never used this new Email ID and mobile number. Claimant further submitted that objector has got the blank KYC form signed from him and later on filled the information as desired by him. The objector has stated that the claimant himself had signed the modification request form. The Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 18 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 claimant has denied that he has asked the objector to change his mobile number. Learned Arbitrator has observed that there is a clear evidence that the KYC form was filled lateron by the objector in the blank column, instead of the mentioning the applicant bank's name as State Bank of India it was mentioned as "State Bank of Dwarka". If the KYC form has been filled in by the objector before signing, he would not have stated wrong bank account. Learned Arbitrator has also rightly held that the currency derivative segment from 24.10.2014 to 03.01.2014 were not authorised by the claimant which has also been confirmed from the fact that the modification request form was filed on 23.10.2013 just before the start of the unauthorised transaction so that the claimant does not know about the same. The modification request form was again filed on 16.12.2013 to change the Email ID and mobile number to the original one, when a huge loss has been incurred on the trading by the objector. After observing in detail about the modification request form and the KYC form the learned Arbitrator has passed the impugned award that the currency derivative segment transactions conducted by the objector for the period from 24.10.2013 to 03.01.2014 be reversed as none of these has been authorised by the claimant and the credit balance of Rs. 897/ be paid to the claimant. The Objector was also directed to transfer all the shares standing in the name of the claimant as mentioned in Annexure A to his D'Mat Account.
Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 19 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015
28. Even though, as many as 18 grounds have been taken by the Objector but the basic ground taken by the objector is that the impugned Award has been passed without any reasonable and sufficient ground and against the principals of natural justice and gross mistake has been committed by the learned Arbitrator which is against the law and against the documentary evidence.
29. A perusal of impugned Award clearly shows that the learned Arbitrator has duly dealt with the matter. The detailed well reasoned impugned Award has been passed. He has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter. The finding arrived at by the learned Arbitrator are supported by cogent reasons. After considering the record and testimonies of witnesses etc. the arbitral award has been passed.
30. In these circumstances, this court is of the view that the impugned Award passed by learned Arbitrator is well reasoned award. The court is not required to appreciate, reevaluate the findings before the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator has duly explained for arriving at its decision.
31. In the instant case, therefore, in view of the above said discussion and after considering the contention of learned counsel for parties and Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 20 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 in view of the various authoritative pronouncements discussed above and as this court is not sitting in appeal against the impugned Award passed by Sole arbitrator and the court is not required to reappreciate or reevaluate the evidence lead before the arbitrator, the objector has failed to show how the passing of the impugned award is also against principles of natural justice or without jurisdiction. Therefore, there is nothing from the award to show that there was no evidence to support the findings of the arbitrator which calls for interference as such the findings of arbitrator which have been objected are upheld.
32. In view of the foregoing reasons this court hold that the objector/petitioner has failed to make out any case for any interference with the impugned award dated 29.09.2014 under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
33. Accordingly, objections are overruled and petition is dismissed.
34. Parties shall bear their own cost.
35. File be consigned to record room.
Dictated & Announced in the (PINKI) open court on 09.03.2015 Addl. District JudgeI/SouthWest Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 21 of 22 CS No. 3018/2014 M/s Swastika Investment Ltd. v. Dwarka Das Ratra DOD: 09.03.2015 Dwarka District Courts: New Delhi Pet. U/s 34 of Arbn. & Conciliation Act, 1996 "Objection Dismissed" Page 22 of 22