Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Javeri Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd., a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange, challenged an arbitral award and appellate award dated 17 September 2013 and 4 April 2014 respectively, passed by the arbitral tribunal of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The respondent, Gopika S. Mehta, a resident of Canada and a constituent of the petitioner, had made a claim for return of 2,13,333 shares of Wipro Limited and dividends. The respondent alleged that she had deposited 22,000 equity shares of Wipro Limited with the petitioner for safe keeping and delivery, and subsequently received 44,000 bonus shares on 28 June 2004 and 66,000 shares on 23 August 2005, which the petitioner acknowledged. The petitioner confirmed holding 1,32,000 shares of Wipro Limited by communication dated 23 August 2005. Interim dividends were paid on 14 January 2010, and further bonus shares were received. However, the petitioner failed to return the shares and dividends to the respondent. The arbitral tribunal allowed the claim, and the appellate tribunal upheld the award. The petitioner challenged the awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the awards were contrary to public policy and patently illegal. The court held that the scope of interference under Section 34 is limited and that the court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view if the arbitrator's view is plausible. The concurrent findings of fact by the tribunals were not perverse and did not warrant interference. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Challenge to Arbitral Award - Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Scope of Interference - The court considered the limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34, including patent illegality and conflict with public policy. Held that the court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view if the arbitrator's view is plausible. (Paras 1-20) B) Arbitration - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Stock Broker and Client Dispute - The arbitral tribunal and appellate tribunal concurrently found that the petitioner stock broker failed to return 2,13,333 shares of Wipro Limited and dividends to the respondent client. Held that such concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with under Section 34 unless perverse. (Paras 10-15) C) Arbitration - Limitation - Filing of Petition under Section 34 - The petition was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The court noted that the petition was filed on time and no issue of limitation was raised. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the arbitral award and appellate award are liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on grounds of being contrary to public policy or patently illegal.
Final Decision
The Arbitration Petition is dismissed. The arbitral award and appellate award are upheld.
Law Points
- Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- scope of interference with arbitral award
- concurrent findings of fact
- reappreciation of evidence not permissible
- public policy ground
- limitation for filing petition
