9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the arbitration clause. 2. Scope of the arbitration clause. 3. Revocation of the authority of the appointed arbitrators. 4. Alleged bias due to refusal to allow counsel representation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Arbitration Clause: The petitioner challenged the validity of the arbitration clause on the grounds that it mandated arbitrators to be members of the Madras Stock Exchange. The court held that the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, is a special enactment designed to regulate securities transactions and encourage arbitration for dispute resolution. The bye-laws of the Madras Stock Exchange, which include provisions for arbitration, were approved by the Central Government. The court found no inherent vice in the arbitration clause and upheld its validity, stating, "The arbitration clause is not liable to be declared as invalid." 2. Scope of the Arbitration Clause: The petitioner contended that the arbitration clause should be limited to disputes arising before the contracts. The court referred to the conditions set out in the contract note, which explicitly provided that all claims, differences, and disputes, whether arising before or after the contract date, should be referred to arbitration. The court concluded, "The scope of the Arbitration clause is very wide and includes all disputes and differences in relation to the transactions covered by a contract note as also the disputes and differences arising prior to the date of contract note." 3. Revocation of the Authority of the Appointed Arbitrators: The petitioner sought to revoke the authority of the appointed arbitrators and appoint a new arbitrator who was not a member of the Madras Stock Exchange. The court noted that the petitioners had themselves invoked the arbitration clause and nominated their arbitrator from the members of the Arbitration Committee. The court found no tenable ground for revoking the authority of the arbitrators and stated, "No tenable ground is shown for revoking the authority of the 2nd and 3rd respondents as Arbitrators." 4. Alleged Bias Due to Refusal to Allow Counsel Representation: The petitioner alleged bias on the part of the arbitrators due to their refusal to permit counsel representation. The court observed that the bye-laws of the association conferred discretion on the arbitrators to grant or refuse permission for counsel representation. The court found no evidence of bias and held that the refusal to allow counsel representation did not indicate bias. The court referenced a Supreme Court judgment, stating, "The apprehension must be judged from a healthy, reasonable and average point of view and not on mere apprehension of any whimsical person." Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions and applications, finding no merit in the grounds urged by the petitioners. The court also awarded costs against the petitioners, noting their conduct was "rather strange" as they had initially sought arbitration and participated in the proceedings. The final order stated, "Application Nos. 4972 to 4977 and 3832 to 3837 of 1993 as also O.Ps. 425 to 430 are dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000."
|
