C.R. No. 4764 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4764 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 24, 2009 Vineet Aggarwal …..Petitioner Vs. Brij Bala Verma and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide order dated May 2, 2009, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act has been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner is a broker and member of National Stock Exchange of India. The National Stock Exchange of India Limited is governed by bye-laws framed under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and as per the said bye-laws C.R. No. 4764 of 2009 [2] any dispute inter-se the broker and the holder/ seller/ purchaser of the shares has to be referred to the Arbitrator. I have hard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. The plaintiff- respondent No.1 has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,17,651.50/- against the petitioner as well as Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (defendant No.1/ respondent No.2) alleging that the plaintiff- respondent No.1 started dealing with defendant- respondent No.2 and authorized him to purchase shares on different occasions and that the petitioner had been impleaded as defendant No.2 without there being any cause of action against him. The petitioner- defendant No.2 has filed a detailed written statement. The application of the petitioner- defendant No.2 under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act has been dismissed by the trial Court on the following grounds:- i) Defendant- petitioner has failed to place on record any agreement indicating Arbitration clause; ii) In the application filed by the petitioner- defendant No.2, no prayer has been made to send the matter to the Arbitrator; iii) The issues in the case were framed on June 10, 2003, thereafter the plaintiff has produced his entire evidence and now the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence after the defendant has already completed his evidence; and C.R. No. 4764 of 2009 [3] iv) The petition has been filed in order to prolong the proceedings. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and taken into consideration the documents shown by him to indicate the applicability of the bye-laws and regulations which provide general provisions for arbitration. The petitioner- defendant No.2 has already raised the plea of existence of arbitration agreement and taken up all the pleas in a suit which has reached its ultimate stage. The trial Court appears to have carefully considered all the facts and circumstances and rightly dismissed the application. Filing of application on the face of it appears to be a glaring example of filing frivolous applications and prolonging the adjudication of the matter on merits. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. Dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act or dismissal of this revision petition, will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioner- defendant No.2 at the time of final adjudication of his objections on merits. August 24, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE