1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.22 OF 2007 Ramchandra R. Deshpande, Age 92 years, Occu. Retired, R/at : Rangalaxmi, Postal Colony, Hotgi Road, Solapur - 413 003, through his Son & Power of Attorney Holder Sudhir R. Deshpande, Age Adult, Occu. Govt. Service, R/at : Sr.No.26, Dahanukar Colony, Plot NoB-135, Lane No.1, Kothrud, Pune .. Appellant. Versus C.R. Kulkarni, Age Adult, Occu. Share Broker, At : Niwara House, 1528, Sadashiv Peth, Near Tilak Smarak Mandir, Pune 411 030 .. Respondent. Mr.Arvind Purohit for the Appellant. Mr.S.S. Kanetkar for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. RESERVED ON : 29th February, 2008 RESERVED ON : 29th February, 2008 RESERVED ON : 29th February, 2008 PRONOUNCED ON : 14th March, 2008 PRONOUNCED ON : 14th March, 2008 PRONOUNCED ON : 14th March, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’ for short) to challenge the order passed by the learned District Judge, Pune on 13th February, 2007, dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (‘CMA’ for short) No.591 of 2004. 2. The Respondent is a share-broker and is 2 registered with the Pune Stock Exchange. The Appellant was working as a Sub-broker of the Respondent. As dispute arose between the parties in respect of the transactions entered into by and between them during the period from 1-1-2000 to 31-5-2000, the dispute was referred to the Sole Arbitrator as per Pune Stock Exchange Bye-laws No.244. 3. The Appellant claimed Rs.1,63,828/- in his claim. The Respondent filed counter-claim of Rs.17,880.62. During the course of Arbitral proceedings, the Respondent filed ledger extracts as well as demat account in support of his claim. The learned Arbitrator called for a report from the Chartered Accountants M/s.D.V. Sathe & Co. On receipt of the report of the Chartered Accountant and after considering the rival submissions, the learned Arbitrator by his Award dated 15th July, 2004 rejected the claim of the Appellant and allowed the counter-claim of the Respondents. It was held that the Respondent was entitled to receive from the Appellant a sum of Rs.17,493/- and also 30 shares of HFCL and 10 shares of Pfizer Limited from the Appellant. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant filed CMA No.592 of 2004 under Section 34 3 of the 1996 Act. By the impugned order dated 13th February, 2007, the learned District Judge dismissed the CMA. Challenging the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed. 5. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the learned District Judge failed to appreciate that the Arbitral Tribunal did not take into consideration the report of the Chartered Accountants appointed by the Pune Stock Exchange, but only considered the ledger extract produced by the Respondent. 6. It is contended that the dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal related to the transactions between the period from 1st January, 2000 to 31st May, 2000 and, therefore, the transactions that took place prior to 1st January, 2000 could not be considered by the Arbitral Tribunal. 7. I do not find any merit in the aforesaid contentions of the Appellant. It is undisputed that there were transactions between the parties during the period from 1996 to 31st May 2000. Merely because the dispute started from 1-1-2000 it cannot be said that for determining the claim of the rival parties, the transactions for the period prior to 1-1-2000 cannot be taken into consideration. 4 Though, the Chartered Accountants had considered the claim during the period from 10-1-2000 to 31-5-2000, for determining the final claim, the entire transaction between the parties had to be considered. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal as well as the learned District Judge cannot be faulted. 8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.22 OF 2007 Date of decision: 14TH MARCH, 2008 For Approval and signature The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.P.DEVADHAR The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.P.DEVADHAR The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.P.DEVADHAR 1) Whether to be referred to the ) Reporter or not? ) 2) Whether the Reporters of the ) Local papers may be allowed ) to see the Judgment/Order? ) ****** Transcribed by : A.G. Kulkarni, P.A. to J.P. Devadhar, J. 6 x