Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. As per pleadings, respondent opened her account with the petitioner on 05.12.2017 and duly executed Know Your Customer (KYC) application form. The respondent appointed her husband as her authorized representative (AR) who used to maintain the account and trade on her behalf. The husband of the respondent / AR, is a well educated person being a Chartered Accountant. The rates of brokerage were clearly given in KYC form and duly agreed to by the respondent. The brokerage applicable in Currency Derivatives Option segment was at the rate of rupees 10/- per lot, which is well below the maximum prescribed amount of Rs.100/- per lot.

vi. The observation of Appellate Tribunal that the DIS was sent separately from the KYC is based on incorrect application of law and is therefore, erroneous on the face of it. Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.5 of 23 vii. The rate of brokerage has been incorrectly inferred by the Appellate Tribunal as '10 Paisa' instead of '10 Rupees'. viii. The findings of Appellate Tribunal that there is huge difference between the brokerage charged by the Petitioner and that charged by other stock brokers is flawed as the standard market practice and maximum prescribed limits have not been taken into account while making the comparison. ix. The observations of Appellate Tribunal that the Respondent was coerced into withdrawing the complaint is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and hence, erroneous.
(a) as provided under Section 13(5); and
(b) Section 16(6) of the Act."

22. Coming to the case in hand, I have duly examined the grounds pleaded in the objection petition in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, legal position and submissions of both the sides.

Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.18 of 23

23. The petitioner company has filed the objection petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and has challenged the impugned award dated 12.04.2019 only to the extent that the brokerage has been calculated at 10 paise per lot instead of rupees 10/- per lot, which was mutually agreed between the parties. In this way, petitioner is mainly aggrieved in respect of findings given by Arbitrators as to the rate of brokerage. The dispute has been with respect to the transaction dated 12.03.2018, whereby respondent traded in currency derivatives through the petitioner company since respondent had opened account with the petitioner company for carrying out such transactions. The petitioner company has been entitled to brokerage charges in respect of each and every transaction carried out by the respondent through the petitioner. The agreement / terms between the parties is based on KYC documentation and same has been accepted by the both the sides.

26. On examining the impugned award dated 12.04.2019 delivered by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal, I find that facts and submissions of both the sides have been discussed in detail and also the evidence put forth by both the sides has been appreciated in detail. Various communications including e-mails and recorded Prudent Broking Services Private Ltd. Vs. Poonam Maheshwari Page No.20 of 23 conversations of the parties were considered to come to the conclusion that conduct of the petitioner company is questionable whereby the terms as to the rate of brokerage were not clearly communicated to the respondent and only after the completion of transaction dated 12.03.2018, the requisite KYC documents (hard copy) was provided. It has been specifically observed that persistent pressure was created upon the respondent to freeze de- mat account and therefore the respondent had no option but to make the payment. The dispute was immediately reported by the respondent to the authorities concerned. The conclusion drawn by Appellate Arbitral Tribunal has been that brokerage charges were not rupees 10/- per lot and KYC form's terms are vague in this regard.