9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re seen to be addressed to the petitioner and received on behalf of the petitioner on the very next date of the transactions for each of the contract notes sent by courier. The petitioner's contention that the acknowledgments are not of the petitioner or his representatives cannot be countenanced and is not substantiated by the petitioner. The rejection of the claim of Rs. 82.04 lakhs under 4 entries of purchase and sale of shares is made upon correct considerations and parameters and cannot be interfered with. The claim with regard to the purchase and sale of shares evidenced by 4 contract notes made out and served upon the petitioner by the respondent and accepted on behalf of the petitioner would seal the fate of the petitioner. The rejection of the petitioner's claim only to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs under the aforesaid JE left unreversed is set aside - Petition disposed off. - HON BLE MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Purohit i/b. M/s. Purohit Co., Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Mukesh Vashi a/w. Mr. Ajay Khandhar, Mr. Jayant Gaikwad i/b. Ajay Khandhar Co., Advocates JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is the Constituent of the respondent who is the membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed in his letter dated 8th July, 2009 that his account had a credit of Rs. 1.57 Crores on 19th March, 2009. Soon thereafter in his account one JE for the transaction with the BSE and several JEs for transactions with the NSE came to be made therein on and after 26th March, 2009. 8. The petitioner objected to the transactions on 8th July, 2009. The claim was lodged on 10th February, 2010. The petitioner was stated to be required to make a claim within six months of the transaction or the date on which he claims to have given endorsement or order to buy or sell the securities or the date on which he claims to have given instructions or order to buy or sell the securities or the date on which he claims to have paid the money or given security which were earlier as per bye law 252(2) of the BSE. The learned Arbitrators have held that the claim is barred by limitation because the claim was not made in the period between 26th March, 2009 and 5th February, 2010. 9. The petitioner has relied upon the two circulars of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) dated 11th August, 2010 and 9th February, 2011 in exercise of the powers conferred upon the SEBI under Section 11(1) or S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of credits in his account as on 7th October, 2008 and 19th March, 2009. The learned Arbitrators have considered that hence the petitioner was aware of his account. The petitioner takes exception to the observation on the ground that he was not served the accounts as required by the rules quarterly or yearly and the entries stated by him may have been incorrect. He was shown the debit entries only on 26th March, 2009. 14. A consolidated account statement given to the petitioner shows several JEs as also the relevant entries for the purchase and sale of shares. 15. The JEs are as follows: Date Amount Remarks 28/8/2008 9 lakhs Reversed 20/9/2008 25 lakhs 20 lakhs reversed and 5 lakhs not reversed. This petition relates to this JE of 5 lakhs. 01/08/08 10 lakhs Not reversed 27/8/2008 15 lakhs Not reversed 15/9/2008 25 lakhs Not reversed 19/9/2008 10 lakhs Reversed 16. These reversals came to be made on 11th August, 2009. The petitioner received information of the reversals on that day. The petitioner had called upon the respondent to give him all his payments on these entries. If all the entries had been reversed, the petitioner would not lodge any claim in arbitration. The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both NSE and BSE for the commencement of the period of limitation. 21. Further on merits the JE of Rs. 5 lakhs left unreversed is claimed to be under a letter giving authority for group adjustments signed inter alia by the petitioner with one Prosperous Finvest and one Payal Pandya. The petitioner claims, and rather legitimately, that Prosperous Finvest was the subbroker who introduced the petitioner to the respondent and Payal Pandya was its employee and could never have formed a group in which the petitioners debits and credits could be adjusted. This has been missed by the learned Arbitrators. They have merely accepted the signature stated to be of the petitioner on the said letter showing the said authority to bind the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that the signature stated to be his is forged and has shown how its structure and slant are different from his admitted signatures on the agreement as also other documents such as his passport, PAN card etc. This is seen to be so upon a comparison of the signatures made as per Section 73 of the Evidence Act by this Court. The learned Arbitrators failed to consider this aspect in its perspective entirely. The claim of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
