1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 140 OF 2009 Umashankar R. Gupta (HUF) ...Petitioner. Vs. Shilpa Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent. Mr. Dipesh P. Guchia with Mr. PradeepKumar G. Dubey for the Petitioner. Mr. Simil Purohit i/by M/s. Purohit & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 27th JULY, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 21st October, 2008 passed by the sole Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Bye-Laws, Rules and Regulations of National Stock Exchange of India, Mumbai (NSE). There is no dispute that before entering into such transaction, the parties, needs to sign various documents, including the Stock Broker and Client Agreement. The execution of the said document is not at all in dispute. The parties have signed various other agreements/documents, this includes the letter of standing instructions and mandate to issue contract notes in digital format. Those terms and conditions of issuance of contract notes in digital format are as under:- 2 “1. Digital Contract Notes in the format as may be prescribed by the Exchange from time to time will be mailed to our E-mail address. 3. I/We undertake to check the contract notes and bring the discrepancies to your notice within 24 hours of such issuance of contract notes. My/our non-verification or not acce3ssing the contract notes on regular basis shall not be a reason for disputing the contract note at any time. 6. In case of any failure in system or errors in digital contract notes, contract notes will be issued in physical form, which will be binding on the me/us. 7. It will be our responsibility to regularly check the mailbox and keeping the storage space for new email messages.” 2 There is no dispute about the signatures on these terms and conditions. The submission is made for the first time that the E-mail address was never given by the Petitioner to the Respondent and the same was not mentioned in the client information column. However, in the above form, to issue contract note in digital format provided E-mail I.D. of the Petitioner. The learned Arbitral Tribunal considered the various material on record including the statement to show that from time to time digital contract notes were sent/ forwarded. The Respondents have placed on record the documents, status report showing the date, file name, status, client ID, time and E-mail to justify their case that from time to time, as per the practice and as per the agreement, forwarded intimations/ digital contract notes. Apart from this, the contract notes were physically delivered also. 3 Having once noted the material on record and the case of the 3 Respondents of service of the digital contract notes from time to time, the Arbitral Tribunal, therefore, after considering the material as well as the submissions of both the parties as they appeared and contested the matter even on merit also, has given findings which in my view, in no way can be said to be perverse as sought to be alleged. 4 The basic agreement was of December, 2007. The parties have entered into a business accordingly. Now, objecting only these transactions of 15th January, 2008 to 24th January, 2008 for want of communication and for want of instructions, is also without any substance. The Petitioner in fact, issued cheques, known fully the transaction in this regard itself. There is nothing on record to show any objection and/ or any justification, at any point of time, about such earlier transactions based upon the same agreement. 5 The Respondent’s submission that transactions were done without instructions, needs detailed material and particulars, which in the present case are also missing. The evidence to support the case of the Petitioner has been rightly appreciated and noted while granting the award. 6 Resultantly, there is no merit in the Petition. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)