Delhi District Court
Sh. Kamaljit Singh vs M/S Smart Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 27 March, 2015
:1:
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA:
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE: WEST:TIS HAZARI: DELHI
Arb No. 56 /14
Sh. Kamaljit Singh
r/o D3/6 , Model TownIII
Delhi 110009 ........... Petitioner
Versus
M/s Smart Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd
office at F88, West District Centre,
Shivaji Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
Opp. TDI, Paragon Mall,
New Delhi110027
.......... Respondant
Date of filing: 12.12.2012
Date of arguments: 25.03.2015
Date of Judgment: 27.03.2015
J U D G M E N T
1. The petitioner filed the present petition under section 34 read with section 8, 28 (1)(a) and 31 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the impugned arbitral award dated 17.09.2012 passed by the panel of arbitrators namely Smt. Laxmi Swaminathan(Presiding Arb No:56/14 Kamaljit Singh vs Smart Commodities Brokers Ltd. :2:
Arbitrator) and Mr. Harbans Lal and Sh. Neeraj Arora.
2. It is stated that the petitioner filed the arbitration application on 15.03.2012 which was dismissed by the panel of Ld. arbitrators by holding that the claim filed by the petitioner is beyond the limitation period. The petitioner being aggrieved by the arbitral award dated 17.09.2012 has filed the present petition on the following grounds:
(a) It is stated that the arbitration petition is well within the limitation period and the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal has erred in calculating the limitation period.
(b) It is stated that the petitioner was under incapacity to plead the matter on merit because the respondent has violated the provisions of clause 38 (f ) of MCX rules, clause 27 (1) of MCX business rules.
(c) It is further stated that the petitioner was under incapacity to plead the matter, in the absence of original KYC kit which was used for the alleged unauthorized trade.
It is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to allow the petition filed by the petitioner and set aside the award dated 17.09.2012.
3. The notice of the present petition was issued to the respondent and the respondent filed the reply of the petition. In the detailed reply, the Arb No:56/14 Kamaljit Singh vs Smart Commodities Brokers Ltd. :3:
petition filed by the petitioner is strongly opposed and the contentions of the petitioner are denied. It is stated that the panel of Ld. Arbitrators has passed the arbitral award as per provisions of law . Therefore, the present petition may kindly be dismissed.
4. The notice of the present petition was also issued to the respondent no. 2 Arbitrator to place on record the original arbitration proceedings. The M/s Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd on the directions of the court has placed the original arbitration proceedings.
5. I have carefully perused the material on record and gone through the submissions of Ld. counsel for both the parties.
6. It is submitted by Sh. Amit Gupta, ld. counsel for the petitioner that the award passed by the Ld. panel of Arbitrators is against the public policy of India. It is stated that the panel of Arbitrator has passed the impugned award against the settled provisions of law, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, Sh. Anurag Kumar Aggarwal, ld. counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed the petition. It is submitted that there is Arb No:56/14 Kamaljit Singh vs Smart Commodities Brokers Ltd. :4:
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. Therefore, the petition may kindly be dismissed.
8. The perusal of the impugned arbitration award reveals that the same was passed by the panel of three Arbitrators. The Ld. presiding arbitrator Ms. Laxmi Swaminathan has dismissed the claim filed by the petitioner on the ground that the application filed by the applicant is highly belated and barred by limitation under the MCX Bye laws15.11 and accordingly dismissed the application.
9. The Ld. members of the panel of arbitrators also come to the conclusion that the application filed by the applicant is highly belated and barred by law of limitation under the MCX Bye law 15.11 and accordingly dismissed the application.
10. On this issue I have relied upon one judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as McDermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd, (2006) 2 Arb LR 498,517 wherein it is held that:
The 1996 Act makes a 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 Arb No:56/14 Kamaljit Singh vs Smart Commodities Brokers Ltd. :5:
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."
11. There are limits to the judicial reviewability. The courts could not go into the merits of the case nor re examine the evidence nor look into the insufficiency of the evidence. The reasonableness of an award is not a matter for a court to consider unless the award is preposterous or absurd. The courts does not sit in appeal over the arbitrator's decision on facts, reached after a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record. So long as the view taken by the arbitrator is a plausible view, though perhaps not the only correct view, the award ought not to be interfered with by the courts. The award is not a subject matter of appeal nor can a challenge under section 34 be construed as an appeal against the award.
12.The perusal of the impugned award reveals that the panel of all the three Ld. Arbitrator has reached unanimously to the conclusion that the application filed by the petitioner is beyond the limitation period. The careful perusal of the impugned award and the reason given by the Ld. Arbitrator reveals that all the material aspects and the contentions Arb No:56/14 Kamaljit Singh vs Smart Commodities Brokers Ltd. :6:
raised by the petitioner were duly considered.
13.In the view of the present facts and circumstances, I do not see any illegality within four walls of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in the impugned arbitral award passed by the panel of Arbitrators. Accordingly, the petition u/s 34 read with section 8, 28(1)(a) and 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is dismissed. Original arbitration proceedings be sent back. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Devender Kumar Jangala ADJ/West/Delhi 27.03.2015 This judgment contains 6 pages and all pages are duly signed by me.
Devender Kumar Jangala ADJ/West/Delhi/27.03.2015 Arb No:56/14 Kamaljit Singh vs Smart Commodities Brokers Ltd.