: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.1438 OF 2009 Pravin Grover .. Petitioner v/s. Karvy Comtrade Ltd. .. Respondent ......... Mr. S.G. Rajput for the petitioner Mr. Ashwin Modi with Ms. Preeti Brahmania and Ms. Nipa Shah for respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, JJ. MARCH, 22nd 2010. P.C. : 1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 1st June, 2008 passed by the arbitrators in the matter of arbitration as per the Bye laws and business rules of Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Certain objections are raised by the office. Since the petition is taken up for final hearing, those objections stand disposed of. I have extensively heard learned advocate on both sides. The petitioner is a : 2 : constituent, whereas the respondent is a member of Stock Exchange and it is admitted by the petitioner that petitioner was transacting through the respondent in the Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. 2. The arbitrators, by the impugned award dated 1st June, 2008 ordered the present petitioner to pay to the present respondent a sum of Rs.15,72,412/- along with interest as specified therein. 3. Learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner raised the point as regards the jurisdiction of the arbitration. He has drawn my attention to clause VII (b) of the Arbitration Agreement between the petitioner and the respondent and had submitted that as per the said clause, the venue of the arbitration was at Hyderabad. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that since the venue should have been at Hyderabad, the arbitration carried out at Bombay was not proper and the impugned award is without jurisdiction. Learned advocate for the respondent controverted this argument by drawing my attention to the text of clause XII and submitted that original dispute were to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Bye laws and rules and regulations of MCX and NCDEX and as per clause (b) other grounds of disputes were to be governed by arbitration to be held at Hyderabad. Learned advocate for the : 3 : respondent contended that disputes covered by the present arbitration falls under Clause XII (a) and, therefore, holding arbitration at Bombay was proper. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and I am inclined to observe that holding of arbitration at Bombay was proper. Clause XII (a) clearly indicates that certain grounds of dispute shall be governed by rules and regulation of the exchange and other disputes should be governed by the Arbitration Act to be held at Hyderabad. Since learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show that the ground of dispute decided by the present arbitrators was falling in clause XII (b), holding of arbitration at Bombay was proper to that extent and the defense by the petitioner, cannot be accepted. 5. It was sought to be contended that the present petitioner had no notice of the arbitration proceedings to be held and, therefore, the arbitration award is ex-parte. In this regard, I have perused the text of the arbitration award. The arbitrators have narrated the developments, which took place as regards service of the notice of arbitration as also what happened after the arbitration commenced as regards since that the present petitioner is made to know about the initiation of the arbitration. : 4 : The said paragraph clearly indicates that respondent had taken proper steps to inform the petitioner about the holding of arbitration at Bombay as also commencement of it at Bombay. Hence, I am inclined to observe that the present petitioner was properly informed about the initiation of the arbitration proceedings and commencement thereof. The present petitioner chose to remain absent before the arbitrators for the reasons known to him. To that extent, it cannot be said that award is ex-parte and hence, that submission is also rejected. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Raiput appearing for the petitioner took me through the text of the award with reference to the reasoning and made efforts to suggest that the said award is improperly arrived at and should be set aside. After having heard learned advocates on both sides, it is clear that the learned arbitrators have considered all the aspects and have decided the point in question and the evidence placed before me. In the absence of any controverted evidence placed before the learned arbitrators, the arbitrators had no choice but to consider the case in favour of the respondent and pass the arbitration award. In my view, no interference is required under Section 34 of the said Act and to that extent the petition will have to be dismissed. Hence, the following order is passed. : 5 : ORDER (i) The Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (ii) Since the petition is disposed off on the merits of the matter, if there is objection regarding payment of Court fees, Petitioner to remove the same within a period of 4 weeks from today. (iii) Rest of the office objections stands disposed of. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]