Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

JULY 22, 2025 Aarti Palkar

903.ARBP.1424.2019.Final.doc

11. The upshot of this submission by the Khatod Family is that brokers were required to ensure that electronic contract notes executed pursuant to instructions received from clients, must necessarily be sent to the e-mail id designated by the client and to no one else. That apart, these Circulars would point to a prohibition on incorporating the e-mail id of sub-brokers and APs as the e-mail id to which electronic contract notes may be sent. The Khatod Family would contend that these Circulars would demonstrate that they were potentially unaware of the transactions that were executed, which led to the balances in accounts, which form subject matter of the dispute to the arbitration. Analysis and Findings:

19. That apart, it is pertinent to note that year after year, the tax returns of the Khatod Family incorporated the earnings from these trades and the income therefrom was offered for tax. The trading accounts yielded returns to the Khatod Family and it is only when they suffered a loss, that the stance of all trades being unauthorized was adopted.

20. Even while the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has noted the contention that the electronic contract notes, e-mails and SMS messages confirming the trades were indeed sent to the e-mail id and phone number of Jatin Bhatt (which were in fact offered by the Khatod Family as alternate contact detail), it is apparent that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has also returned a finding that physical delivery of the account statements and the related documentation to the Khatod Family is true. In these circumstances, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has written explicitly that the trades could not be regarded as unauthorized.