ndm 1 arbp.626.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 626 OF 2009 Joindre Capital Services Ltd. ... PETITIONER Vs. Khushal Gulabchand Jain. ... RESPONDENT -------------- Mr. Jayant Gaikwad i/b Ajay Khandhar and Company for Petitioner. Mr. N.M. Pareekh i/b Gaurav Agrawal for Respondent. -------------- CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 20 th November, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT 1 Heard finally. 2 The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and thereby challenged the award passed by the sole Arbitrator under the bye-laws Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE). The first contention with regard to limitation has been rightly considered by the Arbitrator by observing as under: ndm 2 arbp.626.09.sxw “The Respondent in their reply to the Statement of Case stated that the last transaction undertaken by the Applicant was on 24 th March, 2007 and hence, the dispute raised by the Applicant was time barred. Further, the Applicant raised the dispute in respect of specific transaction carried out on 5 th March, 2007 and the same was also time barred. It was observed from the entries in the ledger account maintained by the Respondent that the last entry in the said account was passed by the Respondent on 31 st March, 2007 and thereafter the Applicant raised the dispute on June 7, 2007 in which he objected to the said entries. The Applicant also approached the Investors Services Cell of NSE for his grievance and conciliation and finally filed Arbitration application on 8 th November, 2007. The Applicant had filed the Arbitration application within the stipulated period of six months from the date of dispute. Hence, it was ruled that Arbitration reference was not time barred.” 3 I see there is no perversity in the above reasoning. The claim was made therefore, as observed is well within limitation. 4 The submissions with regard to the counter claim of the ndm 3 arbp.626.09.sxw Respondent, the Arbitrator has considered that the Respondent has already filed the Arbitration application with NSE against the parties i.e. Adinath Broking Pvt. Ltd. and Mrs. Neeta Jain constituent, introduced by the Respondent. The same is pending. In view of this, the rejection of the counter claim of the Petitioner cannot be said to be wrong. 5 The learned Arbitrator has considering the material, as well as, the statement of transaction for sale / purchase of securities during the period from 17 th November, 2003 to 31 st March, 2007. It based upon the statement, which was received on 28 th April, 2007 and noticing that the credit balance was reduced to Rs.2,40,608/- on 24 th March, 2007 and as this fact and statement are not in dispute has awarded the amount of Rs.2,40,608/- and provided 12% interest on the amount from the date of the award till payment is made, is well within the framework of the record. I see the award is well within law and there is no perversity. 6 Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. No cost. [ ANOOP V. MOHTA, J ]