Dismissed

ms sushma sankalp @ sushma manjari pati v. s.v.s securities Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2007ARBP/67/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay in an arbitration petition dismissed the challenge to an arbitral award dated 8th June 2006. The Court held the arbitrator was correct in dismissing the claim as barred by limitation because the reference was made after the six-month period expired from the date the cause of action arose.

What did the court decide?

Petition challenging the arbitral award was dismissed summarily as the reference to arbitration was barred by limitation.

ms sushma sankalp @ sushma manjari pati Vs s.v.s securities Pvt… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 67 of 2007

¶4

 Sushma Sankalp @ Susama Manjari Pati.. Petitioner

¶5

 versus

¶6

 S.V.S. Securities Pvt.Ltd. & ors. .. Respondents

¶7

 ...
 Ms.Sushma Sankalp, petitioner in person.

¶8

 Mr.Jayant Gaikwad i/b Ajay Kandhar & Co. for
 respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶9

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK,J.

¶10

 DATED : 7th March 2007

¶11

 P.C.:

¶12

 1. Heard the petitioner appearing in person and
 the learned counsel for the respondents. The
 respondent no.4 is a formal party.

¶13

 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the
 award dated 8th June 2006 passed by the fourth
 respondent in the arbitration proceedings initiated
 by the petitioner.

¶14

 3. In respect of the Stock market transactions
 the petitioner made a claim on the respondent nos.1
 to 3 before the National Stock Exchange.(for short
 "the N.S.E") The same was referred to the arbitration
 in accordance with the bye-laws of the N.S.E. The
 Arbitral Tribunal held that the claim was barred by
 limitation and dismissed the claim by an award dated
 8th June 2006. That award is impugned in this
 petition.

¶15

 4. Bye-law no.3(11) of the N.S.E. provides all
 claims, differences or disputes shall be submitted to
 arbitration within six months from which the claim,
 difference or dispute arose or shall be deemed to
 have been arisen. According to the petitioner, she
 was not paid the amount due in respect of the
 transactions made by her through the responden nos.1
 to 3 between 26th June 2005 and 30th June 2005. The
 arbitration clause proceedings were initiated by the
 petitioner on 17th April 2006. i.e. after the
 expiry of the period of six months. In my view, the
 reference to the arbitration was therefore barred by
 limitation.

¶16

 5. In Pankaj Goshar Vs. Fortune Equity Brokers
 I) Ltd. (Arbitration Petition no.368 of 2003 decided
 on 28th March 2005, Coram D.K. Deshmukh, J this
 court has held that the period of limitation for
 making a reference commences on the date on which the
 cause of action for filing the suit for the same
 claim would have arisen, if a suit were to be filed.
 If the claimant were to file a suit in respect of the
 transactions, in dispute the cause of action would
 have arisen on 30th June 2005. In my view, the
 period of six months for working a reference has to
 be calculated from that date. Since the arbitrator
 was invoked after expiry of six months arbitration
 was clearly barred. The Arbitral Tribunal, in my
 view, was right in holding that the reference was

¶17

 barred by limitation.

¶18

 6. In the circumstances, the petition is

¶19

 dismissed summarily.

¶20

 D.G. KARNIK, J

ms sushma sankalp @ sushma manjari pati v. s.v.s securities Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

ms sushma sankalp @ sushma manjari pati v. s.v.s securities Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs the Honkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

H.E. Jani Vs Maharashtra Industrial Develop. Corpn. and Ors.

Pfizer Ltd. Vs Trasnport Pvt.Ltd.

The B.P.T.of Bombay Vs M/S.Shree Krishna Wollen Mills Pvt.Ltd.

M/S. Nikita Art Movie P. Ltd. Vs Sanjay Entertainment P. Ltd.

Yayesh H. Pandya and Ors. Vs Ashok B. Gupta and Anr.