Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. The arbitral tribunal has also given a finding that it was an admitted position that the market was volatile and was going downward. It is also held by the arbitral tribunal that it was an admitted position that the margin call was made on all days including the dates when alleged disputed / unauthorized / uninformed transactions were allegedly executed by the respondent herein by closing out the open positions of the petitioner herein.

32. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this court in case of Ankit Bimal Deorah vs. Microsec Capital Ltd. delivered on 6th August, 2015 in Arbitration Petition No.1174 of 2012 and more particularly paragraphs 8, 11, 19 to 21 and 28 and would submit that the onus to prove that the respondent had demanded the margin money on 22 nd January, 2008 over and above the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and had demanded the margin money on earlier occasion in accordance with the Regulation 3.10 and other provisions of bye-laws and regulations of Stock Exchange or not was on the respondent. He submits that the respondent had failed to discharge such onus before the arbitral tribunal. It is submitted that the arbitral tribunal however has drawn a perverse finding that it was on record that the respondent had made margin call and the petitioner had made request not to square off her outstanding position. He submits that this finding of the arbitral tribunal is totally based on presumption and surmises and is without any evidence.

REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

46. A perusal of the arbitral award indicates that the arbitral tribunal had framed an issue for consideration that though the shortfall of margin money was informed to the petitioner herein by the respondent on different dates, there was a dispute concerning the amount of shortfall informed or margin call made to the petitioner herein. A perusal of the impugned award however indicates that though such issue was framed by the arbitral tribunal, no finding thereon is recorded by the arbitral tribunal in the later part of the award that the petitioner was informed about the shortfall of margin money by the respondent on different dates.

52. The arbitral tribunal has placed reliance on clause 29 of the agreement entered into between the parties and has held that as per clause 29 of the said agreement, the trading member was at its sole discretion to exercise his right to liquidate position/ security on occurrence of shortfall in margin. It is held that the trading member usually makes a margin call which his client is required to fulfill. It is held that in the instance case it is on record that the respondent herein had kvm ARBP47.09&CONN.