1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.29 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.2 OF 2002 Mrs.Bina Sahni, through her C.A. Mr.Satish Sahni ....Petitioner V/s. M/s.Porecha Global Securities Pvt.Ltd. ....Respondent Mr.Rohan Rajadhyaksha with Ms.Asha Nair i/b M/s.Mahesh Menon & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.S.S. Purohit i/b Purohit & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The Review Petitioner was the Respondent in the Arbitration Petition. The proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal concluded at least ten years ago. The purported award was challenged in the Arbitration Petition. By the order sought to be reviewed, I held that the decision of the IGRC had no force of law and that the said purported awards are not awards within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 and that in as much as they purported to be the awards, the Arbitration Petition was made absolute as prayed. 2. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the Respondent (Review Petitioner) is that the matter had proceeded on the basis that there was no counter claim before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Review Petitioner has now relied upon on an alleged counter claim and stated that 2 the basis of the challenge to the award and accordingly the order are therefore misconceived. 3. I will presume that the documents relied upon was the counter claim and that the same was filed. I have proceeded on the basis that the alleged memorandum of cross objection (Exhibit “C”) to the Review Petition and the annexures thereto especially Exhibit “D” thereto was at the relevant time forwarded to the Respondent. Even assuming this, it would make no difference for the Arbitral Tribunal dealt only with the application made by the Respondent against the decision of the IGRC. This is clear from a reading of the award of the Arbitral Tribunal. There is not a whisper in the award which even remotely suggest that the alleged/purported counter claim was even considered by the Arbitral Tribunal. 4. Faced with this, it was contended that the fact that the Arbitral Tribunal in the last paragraph directed the Respondent to pay the Review Petitioner the amounts stated therein implies that the Arbitral Tribunal had considered the counter claim. This is pure conjuncture. The Arbitral Tribunal makes no reference to the counter claim. There is nothing on record which suggests that the counter claim was adjudicated upon. Even The Appellate Bench did not adjudicate upon the alleged counter claim. 5. It is clarified that it is always open to the Review Petitioners to adopt proceedings according to law even before the Arbitral Authorities of the Bombay Stock Exchange on the basis that their alleged/purported claim has not been adjudicated upon. 6. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay granted by the order dated 2.12.2009 is extended upto and including 31.3.2010.