1 ap1187-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1187 OF 2010 Microsec Capital Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. Harish Manohar Kalra. ...Respondent --- Mr.Ajay Khandhar i/b. M/s.Ajay Khandhar & Co., for Petitioner. Mr.S.S.Purohit i/b. M/s.Purohit & Co., for Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 7th July,2011. P.C.:- 1. There is a concurrent finding recorded by both the Original Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner was under an obligation to sell the shares of Ranklin Ltd. on 1.10.2008. Though the original Tribunal has recorded that finding, in the memorandum of appeal the only ground raised in relation to that finding is that there is no obligation in the 2 ap1187-10 bye-laws which requires the petitioner to sell the shares of Ranklin Ltd. on 1.10.2008. The learned Appellate Tribunal has held that under the bye-laws, there is an obligation to ensure fair price of the shares to the applicant, and considering the market condition, the shares were to be sold on 1.10.2008 so that the applicant should get fair price of the shares. Therefore, the petitioner was under an obligation to sell those shares on 1.10.2008. Thus, a concurrent finding was recorded by the Arbitrators of the Trade body who are experts in the trade, and they have recorded the finding which is a possible finding. Therefore, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court in its limited jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The petition is,therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) ---