3,83,571/- (for total F&O Segment); and that for the period 14 December 2011 to 23 February 2012, whereas penalty charged in F&O by the Petitioner was Rs.2,71,573/- the amount levied by NSCCL was nil. Though the Petitioner's case is that the NSE Report is challenged by the Petitioner, the responses of the Petitioner to the NSE Report are not brought on record before the Arbitral Tribunal. Coupled with these facts, there is no letter calling for the margin shortfall from the Respondent, that is brought on record by the Petitioner. All these circumstances go to show that there were no special margins agreed to be collected from the Respondent and that margin shortfalls claimed were not as per NSE. In these premises, the conclusions of the Arbitral Tribunal that there never was the alleged margin shortfall and that the unilateral adhoc margins and penalties levied were totally unjustified and illegal, do not appear to be either contrary to evidence on record or not borne out by any evidence. The award cannot be termed as perverse on any ground. The contentions of the Petitioner that the Administrative Order of 18 April 2012 passed by NSE is used by the Arbitral Tribunal as actually the basis of its award, though not said to have been so used, does not appear to be correct. The Arbitral Tribunal has on an independent scrutiny come to the conclusion that it has arrived at. The figures of margin shortfalls levied by NSE as disclosed in the NSE Report are factual material, which in the absence of any contra material produced by the Petitioner, could very well be used as evidence by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal has not used the conclusions of the NSE Report in this behalf, but figures disclosed by NSE in it. The Arbitral Tribunal has come to an independent assessment of the material to arrive at the finding of unjustified margins and penalties. The award cannot be faulted on this score under any recognized ground under Section 34 of the Act.
