: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 426 OF 2010 Mr. Pankaj Goyal .. Petitioner Orig. Respondent v/s. Astha Credit and Securities Ltd. .. Respondents Orig. Petitioner ......... Ms. Shakuntala Joshi i/by S.I. Joshi & Co. for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Purohit i/by M/s. Purohit & Co. for the respondents ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. The respondents filed claim for recovery of Rs.15 lakhs and odd amount against the present petitioner and moved the machinery of National Stock Exchange for Arbitration. According to the present petitioner, he filed the counter claim for Rs.67 lakhs and odd. Learned Arbitrators by their award dated 17th August, 2009 passed an Award thereby rejecting the claim : 2 : of the respondents. They also rejected the counter claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of the counter claim filed by petitioner and has filed this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) . 2. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. It is admitted that petitioner was the constituent of the respondents at National Stock Exchange ( For short NSE ). The petitioner claims that on account of conduct of the respondents during the period 4th February, 2008 upto 15th February, 2008, the petitioner suffered losses and that is how the petitioner was entitled to recover from the respondents a sum of Rs. 67 lakhs and odd. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had to admit that a claim to recover the amount should have been filed within a period of 6 months from 15th February, 2008. It is noticed that the petitioner filed a complaint dated 1st August, 2008 with NSE making grievance about the conduct of the respondents and wanted the said complaint to be investigated. As the respondents filed a claim for recovery of monies against the petitioner, the NSE authorities treated : 3 : the said complaint as closed. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the claim which was filed by the respondents on 3rd October, 2008. According to the petitioner on receipt of the claim and notice, the petitioner by his letter dated 10th October, 2008 informed the NSE authorities that petitioner’s complaint dated 1st August, 2008 be treated as a counter-claim and in due course of time, the petitioner will file of counter-claim. Across the bar, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated upon instructions that no formal counter claim was filed whereas learned Counsel Mr. Purohit appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly conceded that the counter-claim was filed on 5th December, 2008. 3. It is a common ground that counter claim can be filed by a person to whom a notice is served of a claim within a period of 15 days and relevant rules were brought to the notice of the Court and about that there is no dispute. As the notice of claim filed by the respondents was served upon petitioner on 3rd October, 2008, the petitioner was obliged to file a formal counter claim within 15 days from 3rd October, 2008. It is true that the complaint was filed by the : 4 : petitioner on or about 1st August, 2008. Though the said complaint was closed, the petitioner wanted that said complaint should be treated as a counter claim and, therefore, a letter to that effect was sent on 10th October, 2008. Question before the Court is whether letter dated 10th October, 2008 calling upon NSE Authorities to treat the complaint dated 1st August, 2008 as a counter claim could be treated as counter-claim. 4. After having considered the relevant Rules, one thing is sure that the Rule making authorities have specifically used the word “Counter Claim”. This will mean that a person who is interested in lodging a counter claim must set out facts in the said application and must pray for appropriate reliefs. It was obligatory upon the petitioner to lodge the formal counter claim within a period of 15 days i.e. from 3rd October, 2008. The learned Arbitrators have reached at a conclusion that the complaint dated 1st August, 2008 read with letter dated 10th October, 2008 cannot be considered as a counter claim. I see no difficulty in accepting the said view. The petitioner being a constituent on NSE, he could have filed a counter : 5 : claim within a period of 15 days from 3rd October, 2008. As the petitioner has filed a formal counter claim on 15th December 2008, that counter claim will have to be considered as filed beyond the period of limitation. 5. In my view, looking to the relevant dates and the manner in which the petitioner has attended to the matter, the complaint which was already closed being complaint dated 1st August, 2008 cannot be considered as a counter claim and to that extent learned Arbitrators have recorded a correct finding and no interference in the same is required. As letter dated 1st August, 2008 is not to be treated as counter claim filing of the counter claim on 15th December, 2008 was certainly beyond the period of limitation. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, no ground is made out for admission of the petition and that the petition is required to be rejected at the stage of admission. Hence, following order is passed. : 6 : ORDER (i) Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. (ii) There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)