Bombay High Court
Bonanza Portfolio Ltd vs Meeta Parekh (Res) And National Stock ... on 25 February, 2019
Author: G.S. Kulkarni
Bench: G.S. Kulkarni
1 5-arbp 1149-18@ipa 31-19@nmsl 2416-18
psv
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1149 OF 2018
WITH
IPA NO.31 OF 2019
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (L.) NO.2416 OF 2018
Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. ..Petitioner
V/s.
Meeta Parekh ..Respondent
-----
Ms.Mugdha Modi i/b. Juris Link for Petitioner.
Ms.Meeta Parekh, Respondent-in-person.
-----
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2019 P.C.:
This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the ACA") whereby the petitioner has challenged the appellate award dated 27 July 2018 passed by the arbitral tribunal. By the impugned award which is the outcome of the appellate arbitration under the bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange (NSE), the appellate arbitral tribunal has set aside the award made by the original arbitral tribunal dated 22 March 2018 and allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.14,41,341.41 to the respondent- constituent as compensation.
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 13:16:57 :::
2 5-arbp 1149-18@ipa 31-19@nmsl 2416-18
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Ms.Meeta Parekh, respondent in person.
3. Drawing my attention to Regulation 3.10 and more particularly Regulation 3.10(b), learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent's account was in deficit from 27 October 2016 and admittedly there was a debit balance of Rs.9,77,408.34. It is submitted that merely because there was some deficit and trading was undertaken by the respondent that does not mean that there was no liability on the part of the respondent to make payment of the deficit which was informed on day to day basis to the respondent and accordingly, the petitioner was required to square off the deficit strictly in terms of clause 3.10(b).
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention to the observations as made in paragraph 14 of the impugned appellate award and submits that on the reasoning as set out in the said paragraph, the original award could not have been reversed as also the said reasoning would go contrary to the express terms of the Regulation 3.10(b).
5. Having perused the findings as rendered in the arbitral award dated 22 March 2018 and the appellate award dated 27 July 2018, in ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 13:16:57 ::: 3 5-arbp 1149-18@ipa 31-19@nmsl 2416-18 my prima-facie opinion findings as rendered by the appellate arbitral tribunal in paragraph 14 would require consideration as to whether such observations are contrary to the express provisions of Regulation 3.10 when particularly it was not in dispute that from 27 October 2016 till 09 November 2016, there was a deficit in the respondent's account and the obvious consequence of this deficit according to learned Counsel for the petition was an action as provided under the Regulation 3.10(b).
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the appellate tribunal ought not to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, on the principal point as to whether the appellate tribunal has correctly applied Regulation 3.10(b), in my opinion, the petition would require final hearing. Accordingly, admit.
7. Respondent waives service. If respondent intends to argue this petition for final hearing, she shall take appropriate permission from the Committee so constituted under the rules.
8. The above notice of motion has been filed seeking interim relief to grant a stay to the operation/enforcement of the impugned award.
9. Considering the reasons as set out above, in my opinion, the operation of the impugned award would be required to be stayed ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 13:16:57 ::: 4 5-arbp 1149-18@ipa 31-19@nmsl 2416-18 pending the final disposal of this petition. The impugned award dated 27 July 2018 passed by the appellate tribunal is accordingly stayed.
10. Notice of motion is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
11. Hearing of this petition is expedited.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner shall tender volume-1 and volume -2 of the compilation of documents at the time of final hearing of this petition. It is stated that the volume-1 and volume-2 of the compilation are already served on the respondent which she does not dispute.
[G.S. KULKARNI, J.] ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 13:16:57 :::