9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to arbitral awards under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Merit of the final award by the Appellate Bench and the deposit requirement. 3. Legality and grounds of rejecting the appeal by the Appellate Bench. 4. Existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. 5. Application of the doctrine of merger to the award of the Appellate Bench. 6. Compliance with Rules, Bye-laws, and Regulations of the Stock Exchange regarding arbitration agreements. Issue 1: The petitioners contested the final award of the Appellate Bench dated 28-1-2002 and an earlier arbitral award dated 26-4-2001 under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The challenge primarily focused on the deposit requirement imposed by the Appellate Bench, which directed the petitioners to deposit 15% of the amount awarded by the arbitrators under Bye-law No. 274A of the Stock Exchange Rules. The Appellate Bench's decision was based on a rule under regulation 15.23(V)(2), which mandated compliance with deposit orders failing which the appeal would be rejected. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any illegality or infirmity in the Appellate Bench's order, leading to the rejection of the appeal. Issue 2: The Appellate Bench's final award dated 28-1-2002 upheld the rejection of the appeal due to non-compliance with the deposit requirement. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the final award was flawed as there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. However, the court found no grounds to allow this argument since the final award did not address the existence of an arbitration agreement. The doctrine of merger was invoked to assert the finality of the Appellate Bench's award, especially considering the provisions for appeal outlined in the Bye-laws. The court cited legal precedents to support the application of the doctrine of merger in arbitration proceedings, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition. Issue 3: The petitioners contended that there was no arbitration agreement between them and the respondents. However, the arbitrators had established that the petitioner company engaged in transactions with the respondents, supported by documentary evidence such as delivery records and balance sheets. The transactions fell under the purview of the Rules, Bye-laws, and Regulations of the Stock Exchange, particularly Bye-law No. 226(a), which mandated adherence to exchange terms and conditions. Additionally, Bye-law No. 248(a) specifically outlined the arbitration agreement for resolving disputes between members and non-members, confirming the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. Issue 4: Based on the findings regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement and the petitioners' failure to provide substantial grounds for challenging the arbitral awards, the court dismissed the petition. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with the Stock Exchange regulations and Bye-laws concerning arbitration agreements and the resolution of disputes between members and non-members. The dismissal of the petition was accompanied by no order as to costs, emphasizing the court's decision on the matter.
|
