ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1543 OF 2014

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The matter arose from a stock trading dispute between Keynote Capitals Ltd. (a trading member of the National Stock Exchange) and Eco Recycling Ltd. (formerly Infotrek Syscom Ltd.). The parties entered into a client registration contract and member-client agreements in December 2010. The respondent, through its Chairman and Managing Director B.K. Soni, actively traded in equity shares, derivatives, futures, and options. The dispute centred on allegations by the respondent that the petitioner had carried out unauthorised transactions in its account from August 2012 onwards. In February 2013, a margin shortfall arose, leading to a demand for additional funds. The respondent revoked the power of attorney on 2 March 2013 and accused the petitioner of unauthorised trades. The respondent filed a criminal complaint and a complaint with the Investor Service Cell of the National Stock Exchange. The petitioner claimed that the respondent’s CMD had coerced its employees into signing a confessional statement and that it was entitled to square off the outstanding positions under the exchange bye-laws and the agreements. The first arbitral tribunal of the National Stock Exchange passed an award on 3 September 2013 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,35,16,348/- with interest. The petitioner challenged that award before the second arbitral tribunal and also filed a counterclaim. The second arbitral tribunal passed an award on 16 May 2014. The petitioner then filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, impugning both awards. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 3 May 2018; the judgment was pronounced on 21 June 2018. The excerpt from the judgment includes only the factual background and procedural history; the court’s analysis, findings, and the final decision are not contained in the provided text.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the impugned arbitral awards are liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 68

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1543 OF 2014

2018-06-21

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

2018:BHC-OS:8789

Ms.Rajni Iyer, Ms.Nidhi Singh, Ms.Chaitrika Patki, M/s.Vodhii Partners, Mr.Makhija V.J., Mr.Suyash Gadre, Mr.Chetan Mhatre, M/s. Utangale and Co.

Keynote Capitals Ltd.

Eco Recycling Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge the arbitral awards passed by the first and second arbitral tribunals.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner (original respondent in the arbitration) sought to set aside the arbitral awards dated 3 September 2013 and 16 May 2014.

Filing Reason

The petitioner was aggrieved by the awards that held it liable to pay compensation and interest, alleging that the awards were based on incorrect appreciation of evidence, overlooking of coercion and unauthorized trades.

Previous Decisions

The first arbitral tribunal (of NSE) passed an award on 3 September 2013 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,35,16,348/- with interest @10% p.a. to the respondent. The second arbitral tribunal passed an award on 16 May 2014.

Issues

Whether the impugned arbitral awards are liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the respondent’s CMD coerced the petitioner’s employees into obtaining a confessional statement, that the petitioner was entitled to square off positions per exchange bye-laws and agreements, that the trades were authorised, and that the first arbitral award was erroneous. Respondent argued that the petitioner had been carrying out unauthorised transactions, that the power of attorney was revoked, that the petitioner squared off positions causing illegitimate loss, and that the arbitral awards correctly awarded compensation.

Judgment Excerpts

By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award passed by the second arbitral tribunal dated 16 th May 2014 and also challenged the arbitral award dated 3 rd September 2013 passed by the first arbitral tribunal- the arbitral tribunal of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. The petitioner is a “Trading Member” registered with the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. and has been such a Trading Member since 30 th July 1996 in the cash segment and since 5 th October 2000 in the derivative segment and till date.

Procedural History

On 11 December 2010, the parties entered into a Client Registration and Member Client Agreements. On 12 February 2013, the respondent received an email claiming daily margin. On 13 February 2013, petitioner’s employee responded seeking a meeting. On 28 February 2013, an email was sent by the petitioner’s employee (under alleged threat) regarding unauthorized trades. On 1 March 2013, the petitioner forwarded a margin shortfall intimation; the respondent denied the positions. On 2 March 2013, the respondent obtained a handwritten confessional statement from the petitioner’s employee and revoked the power of attorney. The petitioner sent a threatening email on 2 March 2013 and squared off positions from 4 to 6 March 2013. On 8 March 2013, the respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 154 CrPC and a complaint with the NSE Investor Service Cell. On 6 March 2013, the petitioner discovered the alleged coercion. On 8 May 2013, the respondent filed its Statement of Case before the first arbitral tribunal (sole arbitrator of NSE) claiming Rs.4,48,55,092. The petitioner filed its Statement of Defence on 4 July 2013, and the respondent filed a rejoinder on 18 July 2013. The first arbitral award was passed on 3 September 2013, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,35,16,348 with interest. On 3 October 2013, the petitioner filed a Statement of Case before the second arbitral tribunal challenging the first award and with a counterclaim. On 28 November 2013, the petitioner applied to lead evidence. The respondent filed its reply on 15 January 2014. The second arbitral award was passed on 16 May 2014. The present petition under Section 34 was filed thereafter; it was reserved for judgment on 3 May 2018 and pronounced on 21 June 2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 34
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 154
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Cousin for Rape of Minor Based on Consistent Testimony and Medical Evidence. The court held that the victim's testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and the appellant's failure to cross-examine on material...
Related Judgement
High Court ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1543 OF 2014