1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Arbitration Petition No.593 of 2009 Amjad Ali Siddiqui .. Petitioner v/s. M/s.India Infoline Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.N.P.Bhavsar for the Petitioner Mr. Deepak Dhone for the Respondent No.1 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 15th June , 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned advocates on both sides on the question of admission of this petition by which award dated 7.5.2009 passed against the petitioner is challenged. Affidavit in reply opposing the admission is filed by the Respondent No.1. 2. The Petitioner was a constituent of the Respondent No.1 as Respondent No.1 was trading member on the National Stock Exchange. The Petitioner opened account with the Respondent No.1 2 on 27.2.2008 and deposited first instalment of Rs.1,50,000/- to enable Respondent No.1 to trade on behalf of the Petitioner. Petitioner, with the help of the Respondent No.1 traded in the National Stock Exchange from period 3.3.2008 to 1.10.2008 being last day of pay out as 6.10.2008. The record shows that between February 2008 upto October 2008, after initial deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- Petitioner deposited with the Respondent No.1 amounts from time to time totalling to Rs.2,50,000/- and had the benefit of trading with the Assistance of Respondent No.1. According to the Petitioners, purchase and sale made by the Respondent No.1 on behalf of the Petitioner were not as per the instructions of the Petitioner. 3. In the course of arguments, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in June 2008 the Petitioner realized that the Respondent No.1 is trading on behalf of the Petitioner not as per his directions. In reply to the querry asked by the Court as to whether Petitioner represented to the Respondent No.1 about his alleged mis-conduct, whether any letter in writing was received, Petitioner submitted that such a letter was sent, however, that was not received by the Respondent No.1. It was open in such a situation for 3 the Petitioner to place this letter on record. However, no such letter appears to have been produced, not even copy of the letter is produced before the Arbitrator. The Petitioner had benefit of pay out as to 6.10.2009, got the money back on 6.10.2008 and thereafter he has come out with the present claim covered by the present arbitration. 4. It is pertinent to note that though it was the case of the petitioner that transactions done by Respondent No.1 were not as per the instructions given by the Petitioner, the Petitioner has not stepped into witness box and made a statement on oath and as a result of that there is no material brought on record as regards the allegations levelled against Respondent No.1. Surely, if the Petitioner would have stepped into witness box and confirmed his allegation at the stage of recording of evidence, Respondent No.1 would have been able to bring on record material in order to dispute the case of the Petitioner. In my view, in the absence of any specific material before the learned Arbitrator, in support of the allegations, it would be difficult to accept the case of the Petitioner that transactions were done by the Respondent No.1 without instructions. 4 5. Despite the aforesaid case of the Petitioner that the Trading was done by the Respondent No.1 on behalf of the Petitioner without his instructions, there is no dispute about receipt of contract notes and other aspects by which trading is done on day to day basis. Assuming that there was such a dispute, such a dispute is not placed before the learned Arbitrator in terms of evidence. 6. I have perused the impugned award dated 7.5.2009. The learned Arbitrator has considered all aspects of the matter in its proper perspective and he has arrived at the conclusion which does not require any interference in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, the Petitioner has not been able to place before the learned Arbitrator proper material to support his case. Hence no interference is required in the impugned award. Hence petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence the Order. ORDER Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]