Dismissed

Kotak Securities Ltd. v. Mr Narottam D Mundra

Madras HC26 Sept 2019OP/714/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order disposing of an Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, to set aside an award. The court noted the Supreme Court's view in EMKAY that Section 34 petitions relating to NSX byelaws should be filed in Mumbai. Consequently, the petitioner's petition was dismissed as withdrawn and papers directed to be returned to the appropriate court in Mumbai.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The registry is directed to return the petition, connected papers, and the original award to the petitioner's counsel for presentation before the appropriate Co

Kotak Securities Ltd. Vs Mr Narottam D Mundra — Arbitration | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

O.P.No.714 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 26.09.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

O.P.No.714 of 2013
Kotak Securities Ltd.,
Rep. by Mr.Ashish Garia
having Regd. Office at
Bakhtwar, 1st Floor,
No.229, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 4200 021. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Narottam D Mundra
C/o.Shree Trading Corporation,
No.151, New No.188,Govindappa Naicken Street,
Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600 079.
2.M.V.Badrinath
Sole Arbitrator,
C/o.National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Ispahani Centre,
No.123-124, Nungambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034.
3.National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Ispahani Centre,
No.123-124, Nungambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- Original Petition is filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation

¶8

Act, 1996 to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 16.01.2009 passed by the 2nd

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

1 of 4

¶11

O.P.No.714 of 2013

¶12

Respondent in A.M.No.F&O/C-0252/2008; Directing the first respondent to pay the Petitioner to a sum of Rs.2,26,939.83 along with interest as claimed by the petitioner and directing the 3rd Respondent to return to the Petitioner the Term Deposit Receipt bearing No.09585190009137 dated 29.01.2009 for a sum of Rs.4,55,000/- issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai along with the accumulated interest which is in the custody of the 3rd respondent along with

¶13

an intimation to the Bank that the said term deposit receipt may be encahsed by

¶14

the Petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Karthik Subramanian for R-1
O R D E R

¶15

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is an

¶16

exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Bye-laws of the National Stock Exchange whereby the Courts in Mumbai will have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of Arbitration conducted under the said Bye-law. Consequently, he submits that the petition and connected papers along with the original award should be returned to

¶17

the learned counsel for the Petitioner so as to enable the re-presentation thereof before the appropriate Court in Mumbai. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in EMKAY GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in 2 of 4

¶19

O.P.No.714 of 2013

¶20

LIMITED Vs. GIRIDHAR SONDHI, (2018) 9 SCC 49, wherein at paragraph 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the same Bye-law and held that in light thereof the Section 34 Petition should be filed only before the appropriate Court in Mumbai.

¶21

2.In view of the submissions made and the judgment reported in (2018) 9 SCC 49, the Petition and connected papers along with the original award are liable to be returned to the learned counsel for the Petitioner for re-presentation before the appropriate Court in Mumbai.

¶22

3.This Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn in view of the above reasons. Consequently, the Registry is directed to return the petition and connected papers along with the original award to the learned counsel for the Petitioner for representation before the appropriate Court in Mumbai.

¶23

26.09.2019

¶24

Speaking/Non Speaking order Index: Yes/No rrg

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

3 of 4

¶27

O.P.No.714 of 2013

¶28

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. rrg

¶29

O.P.No.714 of 2013

¶30

Dated: 26.09.2019

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

4 of 4

Kotak Securities Ltd. v. Mr Narottam D Mundra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Securities Ltd. v. Mr Narottam D Mundra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India through Divisional Superintendent Southern Railway

M/s.Oil and Natural Gas Corpn Ltd. Vs M/s.Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Service Limited(Amalgamated with Svul Proects Ltd)

B.Aneesh B Nair Vs M/s.Sakthi Finance Limited

Lotus pond residents welfare a Vs M/s.vijayshanthi builders Ltd.

Karnataka Antibiotics Vs Punjab National Bank

Mrs.v.Velumani Vs The Official Liquidator