1 arbp913.10.doc ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.913 OF 2010 Mayur N. Shah. .. Petitioner versus M/s. Nirmal Bang Commodities Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr. Y.R.Shah, advocate for petitioner. Ms. Dipti Panda, Ms. Jyoti Ghag i/b. Thakore Jariwalla & Assoc. advocate for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1 Heard Mr. Shah appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms.Panda, learned advocate appearing for the Respondents. The Award made by the sole arbitrator appointed by the Respondent No.2 Exchange is under challenge. 2 The first contention is that the Petitioner had no notice of the appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Petitioner was not provided with the list of Arbitrators functioning at the second 2 arbp913.10.doc respondent Exchange. This contention is belied by the fact that the exchange issued notice to both the parties and initial meeting was held in the office of the Exchange. The Respondents’ representatives were present but the Petitioner was absent. No communication was received from him. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed reply dated 24th June, 2009 to the Statement of the case of the Respondent before him, which was received through the Exchange by the Respondent on 26th August, 2009. In paragraph-2.1 onwards of the Award, it has been pointed as to how the Petitioner submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the sole arbitrator and in fact addressed letters and made submissions seeking adjournments from time to time. As to how these applications were considered and granted, is clear from perusal of paragraphs-2.2 to 2.5 of the Award. In such circumstances, if the Petitioner had no notice of the appointment of the sole arbitrator, there was no occasion for him to forward his reply and thereafter to appear before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, this contention is without any merit and deserves to be rejected. 3. The second complaint is that the arbitral proceedings were held exparte. In the paragraphs to which I made reference, the Tribunal held as to how it had no alternative but to proceed exparte as several adjournments were sought by the Petitioner on 3 arbp913.10.doc the ground of his ill-health. Therefore, when the Petitioner has kept himself away from the arbitral proceedings, he cannot complain that they were held exparte and material is collected behind his back. In fact, the Arbitrator has taken the documents on record after the original applicant-Respondent before me has proved the contents of the statement of claim. 4. The third complaint with regard to the award is that the Stock Exchange has framed rules and regulations and if the broker has not abided by them and continued trading, then, the broker is in breach of the rules and regulations. Any claim made by such broker is illegal and should not have been entertained. 5. Even this contention is without any basis, inasmuchas in paragraph-5 of the Award, it is held that there was member client agreement between the Petitioner and Respondent. That transactions were effected regularly from 18th September, 2008. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rs.fifteen Lakhs) was paid on 20th September, 2008 by the Petitioner which was duly credited to his account. If according to the Petitioner, rules and regulations have been violated, it is not clear as to how the Petitioner paid Rs.15 Lakhs. Further the complaint that the transactions were not admitted by him, has also been dealt with pointing out that none 4 arbp913.10.doc would pay huge sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs, if there is no such transaction undertaken on behalf of the Petitioner by exchange. The Petitioner was fully aware of market securities and having executed the agreement, received the contracts notes and Accounts and then proceeded to make the payment. It does not lie in his mouth now to complain that the claim was illegally awarded because the Petitioner was accommodated by the Respondent broker on account of financial difficulties. He gave him sufficient time to raise finance and even when the cover was not provided. The respondent suffered the loss and that sum has been deducted from the claim made by him. The Arbitral Tribunal has only awarded partially the amount claimed by the respondent. To my mind, the award is fair, just and equitable and legal and requires no interference in my limited jurisdiction. The Petition is devoid of any merits. Hence, it is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)