9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004. Some of the material facts in the present case are as under:- 2. The petitioner herein entered into a trasaction with the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No. 2 is the main stock broker of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The respondent No. 1 is the sub-broker of respondent No. 2. In respect of the transaction entered into by and between the parties on the stock exchange disputes and differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 till payment and/or realisation. 4. This award is challenged in the present petition by the petitioner essentially on two grounds: ( i ) that the claim made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein before the Arbitrator was barred by law of limitation and ( ii ) that there is no arbitration agreement by and between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, the Arbitrator has no jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No. 1. Once this is so admitted then obviously the return of the shares due to defects therein as and by way of bad delivery has to come to the same account. In view thereof, the finding of the Arbitrator that the period of limitation has to be computed from 31-3-2000 and thus the period of 3 years will expire on 31-3-2004. The said computation made by the Arbitrator on the basis that since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansactions have taken place on the stock exchange. He has also called trade files from the stock exchange as to satisfy himself that in fact such transactions which are reflected in the contract notes of the broker have been duly entered into the said trade files. The trade files are the records maintained by the Stock Exchange of daily transactions entered by the broker on the stock exchange. Aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
