ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.349 OF 2008 NO.349 OF 2008 NO.349 OF 2008 IN IN IN ARBITRATION ARBITRATION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 196 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 196 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 196 OF 2007 Mr.Jitendra Chaudhary ...Appellant. Versus Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms.Vaishali Bhamat i/by M/s. Singhania Legal Services for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.B.MHASE & : S.B.MHASE & : S.B.MHASE & R.V.MORE, R.V.MORE, R.V.MORE, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The submissions which were made before the learned Single Judge were not covered under any clauses under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act-1996. The ground sought to be made in the appeal is that there was no privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondents and there could not be any trading as there was no margin money in the account of the Appellant. Whether any order was placed and delivery was made is a matter to be ( 2 ) adjudicated in Arbitration proceedings and that has been decided. However, the learned counsel for the Appellant has not pointed what is the error committed by the Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act-1996. The Arbitrator’s award cannot be scrutinized by this Court as an Appellate court and the Single Judge is justified in passing the impugned order. The Petition is rightly rejected. 3. We do not find any substance to entertain the Appeal and the same is summarily rejected. (R.V.MORE, (R.V.MORE, (R.V.MORE, J.) J.) J.) (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, J.) J.) J.)