1 ARBP1040/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1040 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION REFERENCE NO.F&O/M-0966 OF 2008 Avalon Investments Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s Mukesh Brokerage & Financial Investment Ltd. ...Respondents Mr Sanjay Jain i/b Mr Ramesh Jain for Petitioners. Mr Dilip Rai for Respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH J. DATE : 9TH JUNE 2011. 2 ARBP1040/09 P.C. :- 1] By this petition, the petitioners challenge the award made by the Arbitral Tribunal of the National Stock Exchange. The Arbitral Tribunal has rejected the claim made by the respondents as also the counter claim made by the petitioners. The counter claim of the petitioners has been rejected for two reasons  1) it is barred by limitation as laid down in the Bye-laws of National Stock Exchange and 2) the counter claim of the petitioners is vague. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the finding that counter claim is barred by limitation is wrong because it was the case of the petitioners in their reply that they came to know that the shares have been sold by the respondents only on 11th August 2008 and therefore, if for the purpose of limitation that date is considered, the entire claim was within limitation. The learned counsel submits that even if it is assumed that the period of limitation starts from the date of transaction, then some of 3 ARBP1040/09 the shares were sold on 4th July 2008 and therefore, the counter claim made on 10th November 2008 would be within the period of limitation. He further submits that the Arbitrators were not justified in rejecting the claim on the ground that the counter claim of the petitioners was vague. 2] I have heard learned counsel appearing for respondents. It is clear from the Bye-laws that the period of limitation commences from the date of transaction. The dates of transaction in this case are different. The payments were made by the petitioners admittedly on 22nd January 2008. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners were aware of the fact that the respondents are selling the shares. In my opinion, therefore, if the petitioners were claiming limitation from the date of transaction, they should have bifurcated their claim accordingly. What is pertinent to be noted here is that if the case of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that their claim in relation to the shares sold on 4th July 2008 is 4 ARBP1040/09 within limitation is accepted, then the counter claim shows that on account of that transaction, the purchased value of the shares is Rs.82,06,292.00. The decree which is claimed by the petitioners is either in the sum of Rs.1,60,53,389/- or in the sum of Rs.78,47,097/-. It is thus clear that the petitioners were not claiming the decree restricted to the transaction of 4th July 2008. It is thus clear that in any case, the finding recorded by the learned Arbitrators that the counter claim made by the petitioners is absolutely vague cannot be disputed or modified. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, considering the limited jurisdiction of the Court under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to interfere with the award, especially when the Arbitral Tribunal which is constituted by the persons of experts, in my opinion, the award cannot be disturbed. Petition is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private 5 ARBP1040/09 Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH )