1 Arbp1210.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1210 OF 2010 ... Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. ....Petitioner v/s. Mr.Bhaskar Bhatt ...Respondent ... Mr.P.N.Modi i/b Joby Mathew and Deepak Dhone for the Petitioner. Mr.Zal I. Andhyarujhina with Mr.Rajesh Khandelwal i/b Duhita Lewis for the Respondent. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 22nd July, 2011 P.C.: 1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act the Petitioner challenges the concurrent awards made by the First Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal of the Bombay Stock Exchange. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Arbitral Tribunals have committed an error in holding that the claim made by the Respondent was within the period of limitation. 2 Arbp1210.10 3. It is an admitted position that the Respondent was the client of the Petitioner, who was the stock broker. The case of the Respondent was that on 25th August, 2008 he came to know that the Petitioner had carried out several unauthorised transactions in his account, and therefore, he decided to claim the shares purchased by him, which were unauthorisedly sold by the Petitioner. 4. The defence of the Petitioner was that the claim is barred by the law of limitation, because the shares which were demanded were purchased according to the instructions of the Respondent himself in the month of March, 2008. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that a finding has been recorded by the first Arbitral Tribunal that the cause of action arose in July, 2008 when there was last transaction in the account of the Petitioner. The learned Counsel submitted that that transaction is mentioned in the ledger maintained by the Petitioner and that transaction was disputed by the Respondent and therefore that transaction could not have been taken as a basis or as a starting point of the limitation. It was also claimed that the Respondent was also claiming dividend from the year 2007-08. 5. After having heard the learned Counsel for both sides 3 Arbp1210.10 and after having gone through the record, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by the first arbitral tribunal and the appellate arbitral tribunal. The case of the Respondent was that on 25th August, 2008 he discovered that the Petitioner had carried out several unauthorised transactions in his account and therefore he terminated the account and asked the Petitioner to give back to him his shares together with the dividend. Therefore, in my opinion, the arbitral tribunal was right in holding that the cause of action really arose on 25th August, 2008 when the Respondent discovered that there have been unauthorised transactions carried out in his account. Both the Tribunals have concurrently found that the Petitioner has not produced evidence on record to establish that he carried out the transactions in the account of the Respondent as per the orders or authorisation given by the Respondent. In my opinion, therefore, in the absence of any evidence being produced by the Petitioner that the transactions were carried out by him on the basis of authorisation given by the Respondent, the arbitral tribunals were right in holding that the shares in relation to which the claim was made by the Respondent were sold unauthorisedly by the Petitioner. 6. So far as claim of dividend is concerned, the cause of 4 Arbp1210.10 action for demanding the dividend will have also accrued to the Respondent when he terminated the account and demanded whatever is due to the Respondent. 7. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, as the awards are concurrent, they are basically based on finding of fact and considering that they are made by the arbitral tribunal constituted by the Trade Body and considering the extremely limited jurisdiction conferred on the court by Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to interfere with the award. The petition cannot be entertained. It is rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.)