This order dismisses a petition filed to set aside an arbitral award. The High Court held that it cannot act as an appellate court to reappreciate evidence. The award was dismissed, finding the petitioner's claim unestablished due to delay and lack of timely objection to transactions.
Original petition dismissed. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Original Petition No.443 of 2011
S.Vijayakumar .. Petitioner/Claimant Vs.
1.Mr.V.Paul Das, BA BL, Sole Arbitrator, National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., 2nd Floor, Ispahani Centre, Door Nos.123-124, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.
2.M/s.JRG Securities Ltd., JRG House, Ashoka Road, Kaloor, Kochi – 682 017, Represented by its Director .. Respondent/Respondent
Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Arbitration Award dated 29.10.2010 passed by the First Respondent dismissing the claim of the petitioner made against the second respondent and award costs to the petitioner throughout.
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the Arbitration Award dated 29.10.2010 passed by the First Respondent dismissing the claim of the petitioner made against the second respondent.
the entire evidence and factually found that the claim of the petitioner
is not established.
3
“According to the applicant all the above transactions were done by the representative without obtaining any permission from him. This contention could not be accepted by me, for the simple reason that the applicant, as per the terms of the agreements entered with respondent should have objected to the transactions within a specified time of the transaction. But in this case he has not done so, on the other hand he alleges that he could find out the above transactions only after 15.04.2010. It may be seen from the above transactions that they were commenced in the month of January 2010 and concluded in month of March 2010 whereas the applicant has made the allegation about the above transactions only on 07.07.2010 through this arbitration claim petition only. The reasons for the delay as explained by the applicant in his claim petition is not acceptable to me. The respondent has also refuted the Claim of the applicant on the ground the applicant himself
4
specifically admitted in the statement of facts itself that he had been receiving E-contract notes as per the agreement executed by him for that purpose. However he claims that the same was not clear. The respondent had delivered contract notes promptly with respect to all the transactions carried out in the account of the applicant and the applicant had not chosen to dispute any such transactions evidenced by those contract notes. The respondent had set SMS alerts on a daily basis to the mobile number of the applicant and log report is available with the respondent in proof of the same and the same is produced along with this statement. After receiving the confirmation of all the trades done by the applicant promptly and without disputing any such transactions the applicant, after the concerned employee resigned from the service of the respondent company, opted to prefer this arbitration case only as an after thought and the attempt made by the applicant is evidently to recoup the loss suffered by him fer the transactions carried out by him by raising a false case against the company. The respondent has also reiterated that the entire transactions in the trading account of the applicant was carried out as per the instructions of the applicant by himself using his login Id and password and proper confirmation had been given to him promptly by delivering E contract notes and the applicant at any time could have viewed all the minute details of his transactions by accessing the back office of the respondent through website of the respondent and the
5
applicant had not raised any issue regarding this with the respondent. The respondent has also filed all the relevant documents to prove their above contention and l have perused all of them and satisfy myself that the contention of the respondent is acceptable. The applicant cannot take shelter on the ground that the representative of the respondent has done all the above transactions without his consent and he could have verified each and every one of the transactions done through his DMAT account then and there on receipt of the contract notes and E-mail, SMS etc. But the applicant has failed to do this and belatedly filed this arbitration claim petition alleging that the representative of the respondent has done the transaction without his consent and knowledge, after the representative resigned his post from the respondent. Accordingly I conclude that the claim of the applicant is not true and acceptable based on the documents filed by both sides and I answer to the above issue against the applicant.”
6
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
msv
left the shop in order to set right the 8 loss and also found that the claim has not been established. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence. Hence, I do not find any material
reason to interfere with the award. Accordingly, the original petition is
dismissed. No costs.
09.07.2019
msv
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order: Non-speaking order
Original Petition No.443 of 2011
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court could interfere with the arbitral award when the claimant failed to objection within specified time and raised the claim as an afterthought.
Whether the arbitrator erred in law or fact in holding that the claim was not established due to delay and lack of consent verification by the petitioner.
Whether the petition under Section 34 seeking to set aside the award should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Vijayakumar
Mr. V. Paul Das
M/s. JRG Securities Ltd.
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
