ARBP82-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.82 OF 2010 Kotak Securities Ltd .. Petitioner Versus Mahendra R. Kothari .. Respondent Mr.V.K.Ramabhadran for the petitioner. Mrs.A.P.Bhide for the respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12th January 2011. P.C.: . Heard parties. Petition is admitted. By consent taken up for hearing forthwith. 2 The respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal M/s.Kotak Securities Limited have impugned the Award made by a sole Arbitrator appointed under the rules, bye-laws, regulations of the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited. ARBP82-10 2 3 The claimant is the respondent before me. 4 Mr.Rambhadran appearing on behalf of the petitioner invited my attention to the Award and has submitted that the same is completely unreasoned. 5 According to Mr.Rambhadran such an Award cannot be sustained because it is contrary to public policy. In that behalf he invites my attention to section 34 (b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 6 On the other hand the learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the Award and by contending that the sole Arbitrator has considered the pleadings and the documents and therefore the Award need not be set aside merely because elaborate reasons are not given but the Award indicates application of mind broadly by the sole Arbitrator. 7 I am unable to accept this contention of the respondent. The Award in so far as is relevant reads thus: “I have perused and considered various written submissions vide ARBP82-10 3 statement of claim, replies, rejoinders and sur-joinders, affidavit in evidence, cross examination and other documents filed by the applicant and the respondent from time to time in the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal as well as that of the appellant and the respondent before the Appeal Bench. I have also perused considered records and minutes of the previous hearings in the said reference and the award dated 24.01.2007 of the Arbitral Tribunal and the award dated 29.05.2007, of the Appellant Bench. There is some delay in pronouncing the award due to complicated question of law and perusing of voluminous documents on record. I pass the following award AWARD Accordingly, I award as under: a) The respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.4,63,147/- to the applicant on account of unauthorised sale of shares alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the reference till the date of payment. b) The applicant’s claim to the extent of Rs.1,83,163/- on account of non receipt of sale proceeds of shares, against the respondent is dismissed and rejected as being barred by limitation under Bye-law 252(2). c) The respondent shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- to the applicant towards cost.” 8 Such an Award can hardly be said to be a reasoned Award. A general and sweeping observation and finding of the nature rendered by the sole ARBP82-10 4 Arbitrator cannot meet the requirements of giving reasons which are part and parcel of principles of natural justice. The Court is not able to ascertain as to what document or pleading has been relied upon nor is the Court able to ascertain as to whether the claim has been substantiated partially or in full. In such circumstances, the Award is contrary to the public policy of India and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9 It is accordingly set aside. Both sides request that matter may be remitted to Bombay Stock Exchange for appointing an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. Accordingly, it is directed that the Bombay Stock Exchange shall appoint an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate on the claim afresh which shall render its Award within a period of four months from such appointment. Needless to state that the Bombay Stock Exchange should appoint an Arbitrator other than one who has rendered the impugned Award. 10 Petition is made absolute in the above terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)