1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Arbitration Petition No.678 of 2010 Angel Capital and Debt Market Limited G-1 Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7 MIDC, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 .. Petitioners v/s. Dilipkumar M. Ladani 54, Sonam Society, Gadkhol Ankleshwar, Ankleshwar 393101 ..Respondent Mr.Deepak Dhone for the Petitioner CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 15th June , 2010 JUDGMENT : 1. The Petitioner is a member of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short NSE) and a registered stock broker with the Securities and Exchange Board of India ( for short SEBI). The Respondent is an Investor and was dealing in shares through the Petitioner. The Respondent maintained the account with the 2 Petitioner and a debit balance as of 16.2.2009 was found on the account of the Respondent to the extent of Rs.58,199.02. The last transaction which the Respondent had with the Petitioner was on 6.10.2008 and thereafter the Respondent did not pay the dues and that is why the Petitioner applied to the National Stock Exchange for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator by sending a request letter along with cheque for Rs.10,000/- towards Arbitration fees and expenses. The said letter was served upon the National Stock Exchange on 6.4.2009 and the said fact is borne by the rubber stamp appearing on the cheque a copy of which is annexed to the petition at page 13. The National Stock Exchange appointed Arbitrator to proceed with the dispute and the learned Arbitrator by his Order dated 19.9.2009 delivered the award and rejected the reference. It is under these circumstances, the Petitioner has filed this petition. 2. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Advocate for the Petitioner Respondent remained absent. It is noticed that the cause of action arose to the petitioner to recover the dues from the Respondent on 6.10.2008 being the last transaction. The Petitioner had pointed out to the Court, Bye-law No.1(e)(iii) of NSE by which 3 requires that the application should be submitted within a period of six months from the date of which the claim, difference or dispute arises or which is deemed to be arisen. The text of the Bye-law finds place in the award. Learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner submits that the claim was submitted along with the cheque for costs and expenses in the Office of the NSE on 6.4.2009 i.e. within period of six months. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner pointed out that the learned Arbitrator in the text of the award has made patent mistake in as much as the learned Arbitrator has observed that the limitation of six months came to an end on 5.10.2008. This observation of the learned Arbitrator is patently incorrect because the cause of action itself arose to the petitioners on 6.10.2008. There is one more observation made by the learned Arbitrator viz. there was three days delay in filing the matter. So far as this aspect is concerned, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted that when the form duly filled in, in form No.2 was filled in and placed before the National Stock Exchange Arbitration Department on 6.4.2009 it should have been treated by the learned Arbitrator that the Petitioner has done everything within his powers and acceptance of the registration of the said application 4 by the National Stock Exchange on 8.4.2009 has nothing to do with the reference to the computation of the period of limitation and therefore the date taken by the learned Arbitrator as 8.4.2009 as the date on which the claim came to be filed is patently incorrect. 3. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the Petitioner and I am in agreement with him. If the cause of action arose for the first time on 6.10.2008, then filing of application for Arbitration on 6.4.2009 will have to be treated as within period of limitation. The registration of the application on 8.4.2009 cannot be treated against the petitioner for the purpose of counting of period of limitation. The rubber stamp appearing on the document at page 13 of the petition clearly indicates that the National Stock Exchange received the cheques and other papers on 6.4.2009. 4. On consideration of the entire record it is apparent that the learned Arbitrator did not apply his mind to the facts in question in its proper perspective and made error in arriving at final decision and in particular the period of limitation. Hence, the impugned award is required to be set aside and the petitioner is required to be given a 5 chance to have his claim adjudicated before a new Arbitrator to be appointed by the National Stock Exchange. In view of the aforesaid, following order is passed. ORDER i) Award dated 19.9.2009 passed by the learned Arbitrator in Proceeding between the Petitioner and Respondent Mr. Dilipkumar M. Ladani is set aside. ii) The National Stock Exchange is directed to appoint a new Arbitrator so that dispute of the petitioner can be solved on payment of usual charges if any. iii) Petitioner to serve authenticated copy of this Order upon National Stock Exchange, to enable the National Stock Exchange to comply with the Order of the Court. Respondent to pay to petitioner costs of this petition and cost incurred by him in connection with impugned award dated 19.9.2009. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]