ARBP685-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.685 OF 2010 Amit K. Johari .. Petitioner Versus M/s.Bhargava Lodha Stock Brokers Ltd. .. Respondents Mr.Ajay Khandhar i/b. Ajay Khandhar & Co. for petitioner Mr.Similar Purohit i/b. Purohit & Co. for respondents CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 31st January 2011 P.C. 1] This petition under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 impugns an Award dated 16th September 2009 made by the learned Sole Arbitrator directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,48,376.06 with interest at 12% p.a. from 1st April 2008 till payment. 2] Mr.Khandhar appearing for petitioner firstly contended that the claim of the respondent – applicant was beyond limitation and could not have been entertained. ARBP685-10 2 3] As far as that contention is concerned, it has been stated that cause of action arose within six months and the period is to be reckoned from several dates but from the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the payments were made between 21st January 2008 and 31st March 2008. The claim is based on the fact that the last payment was received on 31st March 2008. Therefore, the application made within six months was definitely within limitation. The view taken on the point of limitation does not appear to be perverse or based on no materials requiring my interference. The first contention, therefore, fails. 4] As far as the second contention is concerned, Mr.Khandar submitted that the Arbitrator has failed to take into account the oral instructions which were repeatedly given to one Anand Johri on 18th January 2008 to sell certain stocks and hand written letter dated 31st January 2008 sent to Mr.Anand Johri of the respondent. Mr.Khandar submitted that the letter clearly showed that such instructions were given pursuant to oral contract and they were confirmed in writing. That such a letter was indeed given and there ARBP685-10 3 is acknowledgement of one Mr.Nalin, who represents the respondents is not in dispute. Despite this, the learned Arbitrator has failed to read that in evidence and relies upon the contents of the same. 5] Even this contention is without any substance. The Arbitrator has referred to the pleas raised by the petitioner in defence. If there was any telephone talk and the conversation has been confirmed by the contents of the written letter, then, the petitioner would not have in the written submission, stated that there was a call made to Mr.Anand Johri to enquire about the same. Further the hand written note delivered does not have any authenticate acknowledgement and except the name of Nalin no stamp or date is appearing thereon. The doubts raised about the receipt of this letter by the Arbitrator cannot be said to be such, as no reasonable person would arrive at in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The view taken by the Arbitrator is a possible view and does not require any interference even on this count. More so, when the petitioner has made certain payments after 21st ARBP685-10 4 January 2008 which would not have been the fact, had there been a dispute about the debit balance. For all these reasons, I do not find that the Award suffers from any perversity. Instead the attempt is to have reappraisal and reappreciation of the evidence on record, which is not permissible in my limited jurisdiction. For all these reasons, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but without any costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)