Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: electronic contract in Erach Khavar vs Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd on 30 April, 2024Matching Fragments
The Respondent had also sent electronic contract note on his E-mail id for all the transactions and the Respondent had not objected or rejected a single transaction. The Respondent was paid back the balance credit amount of Rs.37,829.69 in his Ledger Account on 27th January, 2016. The Respondent accepted the said amount without any demur.
(iv) Prior to starting of the trading, the Respondent had transferred 1500 shares of Hero Moto Corporation Limited, 5000 shares of Petronet LNG Limited and 7000 shares of ITC Limited, in off market mode from his Demat Account with Bank of India to his Demat Account of the Petitioner. The Respondent suffered losses in his trading and the shares were sold by the Respondent from time to time.
(a) Emails (F/137, 139, 142, 144, 146, 149, 151, 153, 155, 158, 161, 167, Paperbook).
(b) SMSes (D/101, 103, 104, 118, 122, 124, Paperbook).
ARBP 742.2017 and ARBP 228.2018.doc
(c) Electronic contract notes (126-138, Paperbook).
(d) Telephone calls (C/94-99, Paperbook).
(e) Ledger confirmations (F/171; K/270-272, Paperbook; Para 28 of SOD, p.399, Paperbook).
48. Having considered the rival submissions in my view, the Majority Award has overlooked vital evidence which establishes that when the trades took place from 1 st July, 2015 to 24th September, 2015, there were post transaction confirmation of the transactions given by the Respondent. The evidence on record shows that the ARBP 742.2017 and ARBP 228.2018.doc trades were authorized. These include E-mails, SMSes, Electronic Contracts notes, Telephone Calls and Ledger confirmations. Further, the material relevant fact which has been overlooked by the Arbitral Tribunal Majority Award is that the Respondent had confirmed the Ledger Statement forwarded by the Petitioner which showed the amount of Rs.37,829.69 being the balance amount after the transactions had taken place. The Majority Award in holding that the transactions were unauthorized by overlooking this vital evidence has arrived at a perverse and patently illegal finding.