( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION USJ ARBITRATION PETITION NO.98 OF 2009 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.98 OF 2009 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.98 OF 2009 Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. Kabita Mukherjee ..Respondent ...... Mr. Rahul Karnik for the petitioners Mr. Jayant Gaikwad i/by Mr. Ajay Khandhar & Co. for respondent ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 25th March, 2009 DATED : 25th March, 2009 DATED : 25th March, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Learned Counsel for the respondent was present. Since the matter was to be heard at the stage of admission and since notice before admission was not issued, presence of learned Counsel Mr. Gaikwad appearing for respondent was not considered at the time of hearing of this application. 2. The petitioner has challenged Arbitral Award passed by learned Arbitrator of the National Stock Exchange dated 18th November, 2008 in Arbitration matter No.F&O/M/0265/2008. The petitioner claims that the respondent was transacting his shares through Sub-Broker of the petitioner. According to the petitioner at one stage, the debit balance was to the tune of Rs.12,14,648.21/-. However, taking into the ( 2 ) consideration the Credit balance in the NSE Capital Segment to the tune of Rs. 7,21,685.28/-, the debit balance was brought down to Rs.4,92,962.93/-. The petitioner filed a claim before the learned Arbitrator and produced books of accounts which were in the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner had not joined the Sub-Broker and with this factual aspects the claim was prosecuted. 3. The learned Arbitrator came to the conclusion that because in the books of account of the petitioner the liability said to be standing in the name of respondent has been wiped out and transferred to the Sub-Broker. No liability is shown as against the respondent. The learned Arbitrator has observed that Sub-Borker ought to have been joined as party defendant to the claim so that all the necessary facts could have come to the light. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Arbitrator erred in giving weightage to the fact that the account of the respondent was squared up and the outstanding liability was transferred in the name of the Sub-Broker. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that books of account were maintained by the petitioner in due course of business and instead of ( 3 ) maintaining account of each and every investor account were maintained Sub-Broker wise and that is how the amount was shown as outstanding in the name of Sub-broker. 5. The learned advocate wanted to show account books of petitioner to this Court. In my view, there is no need for this Court to do that as the manner in which the accounts are maintained is not disputed by Arbitrator. 6. If the petitioner on his own wipes out the liability of the respondent and transfers the same in the name of Sub-Broker then the liability of respondent would get wiped off. If the petitioner wanted to recover money from the respondent as an outstanding amount, such liability should reflect in the books of account maintained by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had conceded that the respondent had not placed the orders with the petitioners and that the respondent placed the order with the Sub-Broker and that is how if the accounting system followed by the petitioner permitted showing the liability of the respondent in the name of the Sub-Broker it was absolutely necessary to join the Sub-Broker as a party respondent in the claim before the Arbitrator so that the Sub-Broker could have ( 4 ) supported the petitioner or the respondent and then the dispute between the parties could have been accordingly resolved by the learned Arbitrator. Not joining the Sub-Broker was therefore rightly considered against petitioner. 7. I have gone through the impugned award and for the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am of the view that no fault can be found in the award passed by the learned Arbitrator. In my view, no inference is required in the impugned award as as such the petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . The petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. . There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)