1 JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 602 OF 2009 Pratiksh K. Jain. ... Petitioner. V/s. STCI Commodities Ltd. ... Respondents. Mr. Zal Adhyarujina with Bharat Vaishnawa i/b. Bharat Vaishnawa & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Narula with Deepak Rane i/b. M/s. Ravikumar Varanasi & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 08th JUNE 2010. P.C. :- By the impugned Award dated 28th April 2009, a claim of the Petitioner has been rejected against which this Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed. 2. After having heard learned Advocate on both sides, it is noticed that according to the Petitioner, upon handing over the cheque on 9th September 2008, the Respondents were to allow the Petitioner to trade without demanding further 2 margin. Before the learned Arbitrator, the dispute arose as regards the alleged understanding between the Petitioner and the Respondents. In a matter like this, it was necessary for the Petitioner to produce before the learned Arbitrator appropriate evidence to show that it was agreed between the parties that upon delivery of the cheque to the Respondents, the Respondents shall treat that the monies are received by the Respondents and the Respondents will not wait for clearance of the cheque which will be deposited. 3. Before the learned Arbitrator, no specific steps were taken to place evidence in support of this point in dispute. 4. My attention was drawn to the sur-rejoinder dated 9th December 2009 filed by the Petitioner, wherein certain portions were mentioned by which the Petitioner wanted to examine one Mr. Akhay Kumar in support of this case. It is pertinent to note that before this Court no specific material was produced to show that the Petitioner had applied before the learned Arbitrator requesting the learned Arbitrator to permit the Petitioner to examine the said Mr. Akshay Kumar. This in my view will clearly go to show that the learned 3 Arbitrator was not informed about desire of the Petitioner to examine Mr. Akshay Kumar. It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner has not stepped into witness box to prove his case. 5. After having considered the impugned award, I am inclined to observe that the learned Arbitrator has taken proper view of matter and has rightly rejected the claim in the absence of evidence. 6. I hold that this is not the case where interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is required and Petition is required to be dismissed. 7. Hence following order is passed :- (i) The Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)