arbp1132-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1132 OF 2010 Upagupta Mohopatra .. Petitioner Versus Prashant J. Patel .. Respondent Mr.Deepak Dhane for petitioner Mr.Ajay Khandhar i/b. A.Khandhar & Co. for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9th FEBRUARY 2011. P.C.: 1] The petitioner has challenged the award dated 19th May 2009 made by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by National Stock Exchange. 2] The submission before me while impugning the award is that the transaction was between the respondent and the petitioner, pursuant to a broker client arrangement. However, the petitioner had proved to the satisfaction of the arbitral tribunal that he was out of town from 14th January 2008 to 23rd January 2008. In such circumstances, relying upon the version of one Sumit Kothari, the Tribunal could not have concluded arbp1132-10.doc 2 that the petitioner was aware of the deals and, therefore, the liability to pay the broker cannot be avoided by him. 3] It is submitted that the principle upon which the tribunal proceeded is that the petitioner is working as Deputy General Manager, Treasury Operation of Central Bank of India and he is conversant with the financial transactions and dealings on the Stock Exchange. He is well informed with regard to the transactions of the investments and securities and he would not allow any person to deal on his behalf unless specifically authorised. Further, principle invoked by the Tribunal and applied to the facts of the present case is that the principal agent relationship and the liability of the principal for the act of his agent arises only if the agent has acted beyond the scope of his authority in that behalf. The principal cannot be held to be liable for such actions and in the instant case, it is not proved that the Agent acted beyond his authority. 4] I am unable to accept this contention as the findings of the Tribunal must been seen in their entirety and not in isolation. The tribunal based its conclusions on the basis that though the petitioner was out of Mumbai, he was in continuous touch with the Agent Sumeet Kothari. arbp1132-10.doc 3 Further the Tribunal does not rest its conclusion only on the principle highlighted before me. The Tribunal has observed that the said Sumeet Kothari has been in touch and that the respondent had discussion with him and there was private arrangement between them. Further, it has been held by the Tribunal that the petitioner had been transacting through Mr.Sumeet Kothari. Said Mr.Kothari had approached him and informed him that he could device this free option strategy. That strategy was tried out and a share in the profit was claimed by the said Kothari, which was paid by cheque. In these circumstances, it is not as if the petitioner was a complete stranger to the dealings at the NSE nor can it be said that the transactions were not undertaken on his behalf by the said Kothari. 5] All the arguments canvassed before me are calling upon the court to re-appreciate and re-appraise the evidence on record, as if it is the first appellate Court. That exercise cannot be undertaken in the garb of a challenge to the award. The challenge itself is limited on the grounds specifically mentioned in section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. None of these grounds are being pressed and, therefore, merely because the arbitral tribunal has taken a view of the entire materials, which view is a possible view, is no ground to term the award as perverse. The arbp1132-10.doc 4 tribunal has not acted contrary to the contract between parties, nor it has ignored the material evidence. In these circumstances, the challenge to the award fails. Petition is dismissed. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)