Madras High Court
Mrs. Radha Balasubramanian vs Religare Securities Limited on 31 July, 2025
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.07.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015
O.P.No.492 of 2015
Mrs. Radha Balasubramanian ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Religare Securities Limited,
Registered office at 2nd Floor,
Rajlok Building, 24, Nehru Place,
New Delhi – 110 019.
2. Mr.C.Rangamani, Arbitrator,
National Stock Exchange of India Limited,
7th Floor, Arihant Nitco Park,
90, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3. Mr.V.Natarajan, Arbitrator,
National Stock Exchange of India Limited,
7th Floor, Arihant Nitco Park,
90, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4. Mr.Ramanathan Subramanian, Arbitrator,
National Stock Exchange of India Limited,
7th Floor, Arihant Nitco Park,
90, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondents
[R1 amended as per order dated 27.03.2018 in Appl.No.2628 of 2018]
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm )
O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015
Prayer : Original Petition has been filed under Section 34(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award dated
29.04.2006 of the respondents 2 to 5 in A.M.No.CH024/2005.
O.P.No.493 of 2015
1. Mr.Balasubramanian (Deceased)
2. Radha Balasubrmaniam
3. Jayalakshmi Chidambaram
4. Rajeshwari Karthikeyan ... Petitioners
[Petitioners 2 to 4 are brought on records as legal heirs of the deceased 1st
petitioner as per order dated 16.11.2003 in A.Nos.5945 & 5951 of 2023]
vs.
1. Religare Securities Limited,
Registered office at 2nd Floor,
Rajlok Building, 24, Nehru Place,
New Delhi – 110 019.
2. Mr.C.Rangamani, Arbitrator,
National Stock Exchange of India Limited,
7th Floor, Arihant Nitco Park,
90, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3. Mr.V.Natarajan, Arbitrator,
National Stock Exchange of India Limited,
7th Floor, Arihant Nitco Park,
90, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4. Mr.Ramanathan Subramanian, Arbitrator,
National Stock Exchange of India Limited,
7th Floor, Arihant Nitco Park,
90, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondents
[R1 amended as per order dated 27.03.2018 in Appl.No.2629 of 2018]
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm )
O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015
Prayer : Original Petition has been filed under Section 34(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award dated
29.04.2006 of the respondents 2 to 5 in A.M.No.CH023/2005.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.S.Lakshmi Priya
[in both O.Ps.] for Mr.T.M.Hariharan
For Respondent : Mr.Sundar Narayan[R1]
[in both O.Ps.]
R2 to R4[Arbitrators in both
O.Ps.]
COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the respective Arbitral awards passed against the respective petitioners both dated 02.05.2006 on the ground that the impugned arbitral awards suffer from patent illegality and are also opposed to public policy.
2. The respective petitioners are the clients of the first respondent and the first respondent is a member of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first respondent, without any authorisation from the petitioner, that too, 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015 after the termination of the contract, has transacted on behalf of the petitioners pertaining to sale and purchase of shares.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respective petitioners had terminated the contract with the first respondent on 27.05.2005, but the first respondent had transacted the business even after the said date of termination. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the same, the respective petitioners had suffered losses, for which they had made a claim against the first respondent before the Arbitrator as per the bylaws of the National Stock Exchange.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that there is absolutely no discussion in the impugned arbitral awards with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioners and therefore, the impugned arbitral awards are non speaking awards and are unintelligible ones.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that voluminous documents were filed by both the parties 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015 before the Arbitrator. As seen from the same, it can be conclusively established that the termination of the contract alleged to have been made by the petitioners through their letter dated 27.05.2005 was never received by the first respondent. The learned counsel for the first respondent would also submit that the Arbitrator has taken note of the said fact and has rightly come to the conclusion that the termination letter dated 27.05.2005 said to have been sent by the petitioner was never received by the first respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that only based on the evidence available on record, the Arbitrator has come to the right conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for the claim amount. However, as seen from the impugned arbitral awards, the Arbitrator neither listed out the documents filed by both the parties nor marked the same as exhibits. A categorical assertion has been made by the respective petitioners before the Arbitral Tribunal that they had issued a letter of termination to the first respondent on 27.05.2005, terminating their contract with the first respondent.
5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015
7. Though the Arbitrator concluded that the said termination letter dated 27.05.2005 was never received by the first respondent, this Court finds from the arbitral awards that there is no reasoning given by the Arbitrator as to how it was established by the first respondent that the respective petitioners never sent the letter of termination dated 27.05.2005. In the impugned arbitral awards, though the learned counsel for the first respondent claims that voluminous documents were filed by both the respective parties, the Arbitrator has not discussed those documents while arriving at the finding that the petitioners are not entitled for the claim amounts made by them before the Arbitrator.
8. As seen from the arbitral awards, the Arbitrator has rendered a finding that the first respondent has confirmed by producing clientwise transaction details i.e., volume, nature of orders and trades and client code for all the orders, and therefore, the Arbitrator has held that the same could have occurred only under the express instructions of the petitioners. However, there is absolutely no discussion with regard to the documents submitted by both the parties for arriving at such a conclusion under the impugned arbitral award. The Arbitrator had totally believed 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015 the statement made by the first respondent without any evidence for coming to such a conclusion.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that voluminous documents were filed before the Arbitrator. As seen from the Arbitral awards, the Arbitrator has not listed out the documents filed by both the parties before him and the documents filed by the respective parties were also not marked as exhibits. The respective petitioners are the claimants in the arbitration proceedings. They claim that without their authorisation, the first respondent had transacted the business, which resulted in causing loss to them. The Arbitrator under the impugned arbitral awards had also not referred to any documents produced before him, which confirms that the letter of termination issued by the respective petitioners on 27.05.2005 was never received by the first respondent. There must be a basis in the form of oral and documentary evidence for arriving at a conclusion that the respondent had never received the letter of termination, referred to supra, alleged to have been sent to the petitioners.
7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the impugned arbitral awards are non-speaking awards as they do not contain reasons for rejecting the contentions of the respective petitioners, and further the findings rendered by the Arbitrator are not supported by any evidence. The impugned arbitral awards are also unintelligible awards. Even though voluminous documents were filed as admitted by the learned counsel for first respondent during the course of his submissions, there is no reference to the same in the impugned arbitral awards. In case, they are able to establish before the Arbitrator that their claims will have to be allowed in their favour, they should not be made to suffer for the fault of the Arbitrator. Since the impugned arbitral awards are non speaking ones, and are unintelligible awards and are patently illegal and also opposed to public policy, the impugned arbitral awards will have to be set aside by this Court by granting liberty to the respective petitioners to initiate fresh arbitration against the first respondent in accordance with law.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned arbitral awards dated 02.05.2006 are hereby set aside by this Court, granting liberty to the 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015 respective petitioners to initiate fresh arbitration against the first respondent in accordance with law. The time spent by the respective petitioners before the Arbitrator as well as before this Court in these petitions shall stand excluded for the purpose of saving limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is made clear that when fresh arbitration proceedings are initiated by the respective petitioners, the Arbitrator shall pass the arbitral awards uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.
31.07.2025 Index: Yes/ No Speaking order / Non speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No mp 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
mp O.P.Nos.492 & 493 of 2015 31.07.2025 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm )