Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mrs. Money Nair, filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against a judgment dated 13 March 2015 passed by a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court. The single Judge had rejected the appellant's arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Act, thereby confirming an arbitral award passed under the Byelaws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE). The dispute arose out of a stock brokerage relationship between the appellant and the respondent, Sharekhan Ltd. The appellant contended that an appellate forum was available under the NSE Byelaws and that the matter should be remanded for reconsideration before that forum. However, the respondent resisted this contention, noting that no such objection was raised before the single Judge and that the parties had proceeded on merits. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Anoop V. Mohta and S.C. Gupte, heard the appeal and considered the submissions. The Court observed that the single Judge had passed a reasoned judgment on merits after hearing the parties. The Court declined to express any opinion on the availability of the appellate forum under NSE, as no objection had been raised earlier. To avoid further delay in finalizing the matter, the Court proceeded to examine the merits of the appeal. The Court held that the scope of interference under Section 37 is limited and that the arbitral award was based on evidence and not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the single Judge was upheld. The Court also disposed of the Notice of Motion No.402 of 2016.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appeal under Section 37 - Scope of Interference - Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The appeal under Section 37 is against an order under Section 34; the court's interference is limited to grounds under Section 34, such as patent illegality or perversity. The appellate court does not re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or contrary to the record. (Paras 1-3) B) Arbitration Law - Section 34 Petition - Availability of Alternative Remedy - Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The existence of an appellate forum under the NSE Byelaws does not preclude a party from filing a petition under Section 34 of the Act. The parties proceeded on merits before the single Judge, and no objection was raised regarding maintainability. (Paras 2-3) C) Arbitration Law - Arbitral Award - Confirmation by Single Judge - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The learned single Judge passed a reasoned judgment on merits, confirming the arbitral award. The appellate court found no ground to interfere as the award was based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned single Judge erred in rejecting the appellant's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thereby confirming the arbitral award passed under the Byelaws of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE).
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the learned single Judge dated 13 March 2015 is upheld. Notice of Motion No.402 of 2016 is disposed of.
Law Points
- Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Scope of appeal under Section 37 is limited
- Arbitral award not to be interfered with unless perverse or contrary to public policy
- Availability of appellate forum under NSE Byelaws does not bar Section 34 petition
