1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 481 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. Registered Office at 5, Churchgate House, 2nd Floor, 32/34, Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. ...Petitioner. Vs. Subhasis Panda, Residing at CCC-07, CISF Colony, Nalco Nagar, Addanki, Orrissa-759 145. ...Respondent. Mr. Dipen Merchant with Aruna Singh for the Petitioners. Mr. Victor K. Fernandes for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 4th November, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 Rule, heard forthwith. 2 he Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) basically on the ground of non-giving full opportunity to the petitioners, as contemplated under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, besides a principle of natural justice. There is no dispute on record that the learned Arbitrator on 18th November, 2008, directed as under:- 2 “Based on the documents by both the parties there was a detailed discussion about claim and counter claim filed by the Applicant and the respondent respectively. The Applicant is directed to submit the following documents by November, 28, 2008. . Proof of despatch of DIS book, DP Statement and DP Agreement. . Proof of despatch of ECN to the Respondent’s email ID. . Status of Mr. Pranam Das and Mr. Barun Jalan working in the Applicant’s office in Bhubneshwar. . Market to Market looses on the day of 16, 17 and 18 January, 2008. . Status of Netcore Solutions Private Limited and their authority to send the SMS to the client on behalf of the broker. The Respondent is directed to submit the documents/information latest by November 28, 2008: . Explanatory note of the counter claim. . Evidences regarding the request for Squaring Off the position on January 21, 2008.” 3 Admittedly, thereafter, no meeting or hearing took place. The learned Arbitrator never called either parties and to submit their respective submissions on the basis of newly added documents which includes a letter dated 19th January, 2008 of the respondent referring to squaring off the account in question. Such a mode was never agreed or contemplated 3 under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act. No such practice or usage of the trade placed on the record. Section 18 of the Arbitration Act also contemplates that the full and equal opportunity need to be given to the parties. 4 The requirement of an opportunity to deal with the respective case just cannot be overlooked. Each party has a right to present his own case and must be aware of his opponents case. Therefore, both the parties must be given a full opportunity to test and rebut the same. 5 The award so passed has referred and dealt this letter and related aspects in detail while rejecting the claim of the applicant-Petitioner, and granting the counter claim in favour of the Respondent. 6 Having once passed the order, directing the parties to file the documents, it is desirable and necessary to give full opportunity to the parties to make their respective submissions on those added documents. The requirement of principles of natural justice or ex aequo et bono or amiable compositeur, if not complied with, I am of the view that on this ground itself, the award needs to be interfered with. Such award deserves to be set aside. It is made clear that, I am not deciding anything on the 4 merits of the matter. 7 Resultantly, the impugned award dated 23rd January, 2009 is quashed and set aside. 8 However, the liberty is granted to the Applicant-Petitioner, to take appropriate steps, accordingly. 9 The Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)