- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO.291 OF 2003 ... Abhipra Capital Ltd. ...Petitioner v/s. Econ Antri Ltd. ...Respondent ... Mr.Kamal Katta i/b Thakordas Madgaonkar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 16TH MARCH,2005 P.C.: - 2 - 1. By this Petition the Petitioner challenges the award dated 31-1-2003 made by the sole arbitrator appointed by the National Stock Exchange. From the award it appears that the main ground on which the claim was contested by the Respondent was the ground of limitation. 2. So far as that ground is concerned the arbitral tribunal has found that according to bye-laws governing period of limitation, time spent in conciliation proceedings before the Investor Grievance Cell is to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. The arbitral tribunal has found that a complaint was made to the Investor Grievance Cell by the Respondent and that complaint continued to remain pending till 9th April, 2002, and thereafter in August, 2002 a reference to arbitration was made. Though, it was argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the complaint to the Investor Grievance Cell itself was made in October, 2001, he was not able to show me that this contention was raised before the arbitral tribunal. Really speaking, the learned Counsel conceded that such question was not raised before the learned Arbitrator. - 3 - 3. So far as award on merits is concerned, apart from the fact the award was mainly contested on the point of limitation, I find that the finding is essentially a finding of fact and it is based on appreciation of evidence available on record. Considering the extremely limited jurisdiction of this Court, specially as the award which has been made by the arbitral tribunal constituted as trade body, in my opinion, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the same. 4. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. ...