Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(f) That Arbitrator failed to take into account that no assured returns were promised by the petitioner.

5. I have heard the rival submissions.

6. The petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that Arbitrator has placed too much reliance on the alleged telephonic conversation between the respondent and Santosh Jha. Counsel for petitioner has argued that no liability can be fasten on the petitioner for the alleged misconduct of Santosh Jha. He has mentioned that the Arbitrator wrongly based her finding on the transcripts of a DVD containing alleged conversation between Bimlesh Kumar Pandey and Santosh Jha. He submitted that the transcripts of the conversation were not admissible as the necessary certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not furnished. He has contended that these transcripts were produced by the respondents at a later stage of the arbitration after the petitioner had already filed the statement of defence. He has contended that it was expressly mentioned in the welcome note that the investment made by the respondents were subject to market risk. He has contended that in respect of each transaction, an SMS was triggered at the registered Arbtn.No.11401/2016, 11402/2016 & 11404/2016 mobile number of the respondents. He has mentioned that besides the SMS, trade confirmation calls were also made to the respondents. He has stated that electronic contract notes and ledger balance were also transmitted on the registered emails of respondents. He has contended that the trade confirmation calls were duly confirmed by the respondents. He has argued that respondents never lodged any complaint in respect of the trade transactions before 13.01.2014. He has contended that the complaint was lodged by the respondents only after discovering that they have suffered losses. He has contended that Arbitrator ignored all these facts and passed award in favour of respondents. It has been argued by the petitioner that the finding of the Arbitrator is in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian Law as well as basic notions of justice. Apart from these submissions, it has also been argued on behalf of petitioner that the award was based on mis-appreciation of facts. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the patent illegality in the award goes to the root of the matter and therefore, the award deserves to the set aside.

17. On opening of the trading accounts, petitioner sent a welcome letters to the respondents intimating them that Santosh Kumar Jha has been appointed as their dedicated Relationship Manager and his phone number was also provided. The welcome letters and MCA contained detailed terms & conditions. It was categorically specified in clause-14 of the welcome note that an electronic generated contract note shall be sent to the respondents within 24 hours of execution of trade on their registered email address. In this clause, respondents were urged to check the contract note minutely and report for any discrepancy within 24 hours of the receipt of contract note. Clause-15 of the welcome note specified that the orders placed by the respondents are not recorded and in case, any contract note is not as per the order, the respondents should deny the same within 24 hours and in case, they failed to deny the contract note, same shall be deemed to be ratified. It was mentioned in clause-17 of the welcome note that all investment in the market/exchange are subject to market risk and therefore, respondents should take due care before executing trade. It was mentioned in Arbtn.No.11401/2016, 11402/2016 & 11404/2016 clause-18 of the welcome note that neither petitioner nor its employees were in the business of portfolio management/advisory and therefore, no investment in the securities market could be guaranteed. It was advised that respondents should wisely take decisions before executing trade and thoroughly check contract notes, ledge accounts on regular basis. It was specified in clause-19 of the welcome note that petitioner does not deal in any other products like guaranteed return and in case, any action is done beyond the terms of KYC, the company shall not be held responsible. The petitioner filed Membership Client Agreements, Risk Disclosure Documents and KYCs along with the statements of defence. These documents were placed on record in the arbitration proceedings. Petitioner also placed on record the welcome letters and mentioned that the same were forwarded on the registered emails of respondents and the same were also sent through courier.

18. Petitioner mentioned in the statement of defence before the Arbitrator that Electronic Contract Notes of the trade transactions were forwarded at the registered email IDs of the respondents. The log report of the Electronic Contract Notes and the bills were filed to substantiate these submissions. Petitioner further stated that trade confirmation and ledger balance SMSs were regularly sent at the registered mobile numbers of Arbtn.No.11401/2016, 11402/2016 & 11404/2016 the respondents on daily basis but they never disputed any transactions. The SMS delivery reports of the trade confirmation SMSs were placed on record. Petitioner mentioned that since respondents were doing trading in forward market, therefore, intimations were sent to them that increase in the volume of trading has been noticed in their trading account. Copy of the emails through which the intimations were delivered were filed along with the statement of claim. Petitioner stated that the ledger statements were dispatched regularly at the registered email ID of the respondents. The log reports of the ledger statements along with the financial ledger statements were filed along with statements of defence.

22. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents at the time of opening of the trading accounts. The precautions that need to be taken for trading in the commodity market were highlighted in the MCA, KYC, Risk Disclosure Document and welcome note. For each day's transactions, trade confirmation calls were made to the respondents, which were confirmed by them. SMSs were also sent on Arbtn.No.11401/2016, 11402/2016 & 11404/2016 the registered mobile phones confirming the transactions done by them. Petitioner has submitted that ledger balance and electronic contract notes were sent on the registered emails of the respondents and respondents have not disputed this aspect. The petitioner has taken all the due precautions. The agreement and the welcome note contains a detailed account of the standard operating procedure which provided various cross-checks to ensure that a client is not misled. The trade confirmation calls provided an opportunity to the clients to accept or deny the trading orders placed by them within 24 hours. Nothing more could have been done on the part of the petitioner. In such circumstances, if the respondents suffered losses by acting on the instructions of the employee of petitioner, the petitioner cannot be held liable as their employee certainly acted outside the authority. It is a settled principle of law that an agent can bind the principal only for the acts done by him in furtherance of its express or implied authority but the principal cannot be held liable for the acts committed beyond the implied or express authority.