Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The case of the objector/petitioner as averred in the present objection petition is that petitioner is reputed SEBI registered intermediary of Capital markets having membership of both Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE) and National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE), pursuant to which petitioner is entitled to purchase, sell shares, and deal in derivative instruments on behalf of its clients. It is averred that clientele relationship was mapped by Delhi Branch of petitioner and client code 102M33 was allotted to respondent no.1 after his duly execution of the KYC, Member -Client Agreement, Risk Disclosure Documents (RDD) which clearly states the risk associated while dealing in capital market and right and obligation of the member and the constituent inters and the said KYC executed on 21.06.2016. It is averred that in terms of the said KYC, respondent no.1 opted to receive the electronic contract notes at his email id. The petitioner sent a detailed welcome letter to each client which mentions his KYC details along with necessary precautions to be taken by the client while dealing through petitioner in Securities/Derivative market. The clauses of the welcome letter stated the contract between petitioner and respondent no.1 regarding the manner in which order shall be placed. It is averred that as part of KYC, respondent no.1 had executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner towards adjustment of securities in DEMAT account without having separate individual instructions every time. It is averred that it was categorically informed to the respondent no.1 through welcome call and welcome letter, at the time of account opening that the organization does not involve itself into the business of Portfolio Management Services and do not M/s Kaynet Finance Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Singh and ors. Page No.3 of 15 guarantee any return on the funds invested through petitioner.

5. By way of present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner is challenging the said award dated 13.07.2018 mainly on the following grounds besides other grounds:

(a) that the arbitral award is bad in law as there is no whisper in impugned arbitral award that petitioner company neglected/breached any contractual or legal duties;
(b) that conclusion of arbitral tribunal that unauthorized trading was nto established since electronic contract notes were sent for transaction as mandated under contract and complainant ratified every act of petitioner company and in this manner the margins earned by petitioner for their work was part of consideration and could not have been directed to be refunded;
(c) that there was no requirement to prove any pre-trade order and consent for all pre-trades were implied by rectification of electronic contract notes and contents of post trade verification calls with SMS alerts;
(d) that on the one hand appellate arbitral tribunal held that respondent no.1 never disputed any previous transactions and it was case of deemed acceptance of trade. However, it remains unexplained the basis in which brokerage earned by petitioner were directed to be refunded;