1 ssm/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 270 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. Having its Registered Office at 5, Churchgate House, 2nd Floor, 32/34, Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. ...Petitioner. Vs. Ms. Samira Sajid Virani residing at Bunglow 57-A, Karimabad Society, Ghod Dod Road, Bharat Road, Surat, Gujarat-395 007. ...Respondent. Mr. Dipen Merchant, Sr. Counsel i/by Aruna Singh for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 20TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1 An Affidavit of service is taken on record. Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) provides that 2 notices should be sent on last known address of the parties. As per the record, the last known address is on “Know Your Clients” (KYC) form at Exhibit “A”. 2 The Petitioner has already filed an affidavit of service regarding delivery of notices on the above address. The affidavit of service is dated 24th June, 2009. Therefore, for the purpose of Section 9 Petition, in my view, this is sufficient compliance, as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. The Petitioner’s basic claim is described in the Petition. On 27th January, 2009, the sole Arbitrator has passed the award at Mumbai. There is nothing to show that the Respondent has challenged the same. 3 Even otherwise, this Court has already, in similar matter in Arbitration Petition No.308 of 2009, on 2nd July, 2009, taken following view:- “2. There is an agreement which provides an arbitration clause. Based upon Clause 19 of a Member-Client Agreement and as agreed, the Court in Mumbai has jurisdiction to decide the dispute or conflict arising out of the agreement. The agreement deals with buying and/or selling and dealing in securities and trading on the National Stock Exchange. The business was done accordingly. The amount as claimed is due and payable by the Respondent. Therefore the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and 3 Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) in February 2009 before this Court at Mumbai.” “3. The relevant Clause 19 of Client-Member Agreement is reproduced as under : “19. The member and the constituent declare and agree that the transactions executed on the Exchange are subject to Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations and circulars issued there under of the respective Exchange shall be deemed to be and shall take effect as wholly made, entered into and to be performed in the city of Mumbai and the parties to such trade shall be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Courts in Mumbai for purpose of giving effect to the Rules, Byelaws, and Regulations of the relevant exchange segments and also with regards to any claims or matters arising under the terms and conditions set out in this agreement.” Strikingly, the Agreement between the parties has been approved by the SEBI.” “8. Having observed above, and as a prima facie case is made out and it is just and convenient to grant the prayer of securing the amount of Award, I am inclined to grant the following order : (a) “The Respondent is directed to furnish/secure the amount as awarded from the date of receipt of the Order within eight weeks. (b) The liberty is granted to the Respondent to 4 move for settlement, if any.” 4. Having noted above, there is nothing survive in this petition. The petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent with liberty. No order as to cost. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)