1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO.399 OF 2009 Mayank Varia ] Residing at 601, Senorita, near Shivagar] Hotel, 12th Gulmohar Cross Road, ] Juhu, Mumbai – 400 049 ].. Petitioner V/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. ] Palm Spring Centre, 2nd Floor, ] Next to Dmart, Link Road, Malad(W) ] Mumbai – 400 064. ] .. Respondent Mr.H.S.Thakkar for the petitioner. Mr.S.Y.Amare or the respondent. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard finally. The petitioner has invoked under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and thereby challenged the Award passed by the sole Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the bylaws, rules and regulations of F & O Segment. There is no dispute that parties have entered into a contract as per the rules and regulations based upon which they treaded since long. 2 2. The contract itself provides facilities of intimating the trade/business/transactions through E-mail also. 3. The Petitioner/Applicant has given E-Mail address. 4. The basic challenge is that the Respondent got blank agreements/forms/documents and it appears that he has not signed. The commercial documents when party enters into knowing fully the consequences and do the business, based upon the said for long time, now says that the documents were blank is acceptable. 5. Admittedly, as recorded, the parties traded since October 2007 and now says that they never understood the transactions and/or the meaning of F and O trade done in the share market and/or never received the contract notes digitally, in no way sufficient to overlook the fact that admittedly, the petitioner deposited nearabout rupees 10 lakhs towards the transactions, based upon the agreement in question. 6. Having given the E-mail address and accordingly the 3 Respondent were forwarding the contract notes digitally now the petitioner cannot say that he never opened the E-Mail and thereafter he never received any contract notes in digitally or otherwise, is also unacceptable. 7. The learned Arbitrator, considering the material available on record, including the various transactions entered into from September 2007 to April 2008 and even after recording the adjustment of Rs.10 lakhs deposited by the Petitioner arrived at a figure as awarded which, in my view, cannot be said to be perverse and/or contrary to the law and the regulations. 8. The reasoning so recorded therefore need no interference including the ground on 12 % interest from the date of filing of the case till the payment or realization. 9 The counter claim of the Petitioner though raised, based upon the event of 21.1.2008, filed on 4/12/2008, in the reply if the Respondent/original claimant Petition and is therefore, barred by limitation of six months as per the contract 4 and therefore rejected. This is also no way can be said to be contrary to the rules and regulations. 10. The award so passed is well within the frame work of law and record. There is no perversity or any illegality. The Arbitrator has followed all the procedural aspects and the principle of natural justice. 11. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. 12. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)