9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of the appellant by the respondent no. 1 with the debit balance of respondent no. 2 did not arise. Though the Arbitral Tribunal took cognizance of this Byelaws requiring express authority of a client for adjustment of the credit and debit balance as the case may be, the Arbitral Tribunal approved the illegal transfer of the credit balance of the appellant in the account of the respondent no. 2 without any express authority or otherwise in violation of Bye-law 247A and also the SEBI guidelines - The Arbitral Award ought to have been set aside by the learned Single Judge on the ground of such perversity or patent illegality. The Arbitral Tribunal thus committed perversity and patent illegality by holding the appellant and respondent no. 2 as a family unit for the purpose of joint and several liabilities. Despite the fact that there were separate client code, separate contract notes and bills and separate bank accounts, the Arbitral Tribunal has also rendered a perverse finding that the broker member may not have seen other family members except their photographs on compulsory Broker Client Agreement Form. The entire adjustment made by the respondent no. 1 by transferring the cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterfered with by the learned Single Judge. In our view, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the award on the ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the findings rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal being totally perverse and contrary to bye-laws, rules and regulations of Stock Exchange, Mumbai, award was liable to be set aside on that ground itself. The respondent no. 1 had not made any claim against the appellant as the constituent arising out of two separate accounts, but had filed claim against two separate constituents in the same statement of claim based on two separate causes of action - The alleged cause of action between the respondent No. 1 and the appellant being a private transaction not covered by the said Bye-law 248(a) could not be adjudicated under the said Bye-law. Merely because the appellant was also impleaded as a constituent in the statement of claim along with the respondent no. 1, such pleadings would not confer the jurisdiction upon the arbitral tribunal. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that the appellant was not sued on the basis of transactions on the floor of the exchange between the appellant and the respondent no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut had executed an individual client registration application form dated 1st August, 1999. 4. It was the case of the appellant that at the end of the settlement period A-42 on 31st January, 2001 there was an admitted credit balance of Rs. 7,40,020/- due and payable by the respondent no. 1 to the appellant. On 16th February, 2001, the appellant paid a further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the respondent no. 1 thus taking the credit balance is the sum of Rs. 9,40,020/-. It is the case of the appellant that no further transactions were carried out by the appellant in respect of the said account with respondent no. 1. At the end of the period February, 2001 when the appellant decided not to carry out any further transactions with respondent no. 1, there was a credit balance of Rs. 9,40,020/- in the account of the appellant with respondent no. 1. 5. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent no. 2 also had executed a separate individual Client Registration Application form as per the format given by respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 had opened a separate account of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 was carrying out separate transactions with respondent no. 1 under the said accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made an Award on 26th February, 2004 directing the appellant and the respondent no. 2 to pay jointly and severally to the respondent no. 1 a sum of Rs. 11848069/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1st May, 2001 till the date of payment. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the counter-claim filed by the appellant. 8. Being aggrieved by the said Arbitral Award, the appellant as well as respondent no. 2 filed two separate Arbitration Petitions bearing No. 309 of 2004 and 308 of 2004 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before this Court. By an order dated 23rd August, 2005, a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed both the Arbitration Petitions with costs as incurred by the respondent no. 1. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 23rd August, 2005 the appellant has preferred this Appeal. Respondent no. 2 did not file any Appeal impugning the said order dated 23rd August, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge. 9. Mr. Simil Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant, invited our attention to the pleadings and documents forming part of the record before the Arbitral Tribunal, various By-Laws, Rules and Regulations of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai, written submissions fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, in exceptional circumstances Member broker may receive payment in cash, to the extent that there is no violation of the Income Tax requirement for the time being in force. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent no. 1 had accordingly opened two separate accounts of the appellant and the respondent no. 2 respectively. All the transactions were carried out by the appellant-respondent no. 2 separately and were entered in those two separate accounts of the appellant and the respondent no. 2 respectively. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1-broker could not have held the appellant liable for the transactions, if any, carried out by the respondent no. 2 with the respondent no. 1 individually. A separate arbitration agreement was recorded between the appellant and the respondent no. 1 and between the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 in respect of their separate transactions. There was no Tripartite agreement entered into between the appellant, respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 in respect of the dealings in the stock exchange. 13. Learned counsel invited our attention to the relevant para in the impugned Award on page 67 of the paper book and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner on the basis of bestowed relationship between husband and wife. No finding of joint and several liability could be rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal passed on the alleged oral agreement between the appellant and the respondent no. 1. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the part of the Award at page 54 of the paper book referring to the written submissions made by the appellant contending that the claim filed by the respondent no. 1 was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action as the respondent no. 1 had entered into separate client broker agreement with respect of the respective separate transactions and therefore, the claim as filed by the respondent no. 1 against the appellant was not maintainable and was liable to be said aside. 17. The Arbitral Tribunal had also referred to written submissions filed by the appellant inviting the attention of the Arbitral Tribunal to the Bye-laws and the SEBI guidelines which were violated and disregarded by the respondent no. 1. The appellant had denied the alleged oral agreement or understanding as pleaded by the respondent no. 1. Reliance was placed on clause (ix) of the mandatory precautions to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our attention to few observations made by the learned single judge in the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2005. He submits that the learned single Judge has erroneously held that it was an implied term in the written contract executed between the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 1 and it was agreed to between the parties orally that if there was any debit balance in the account of the wife, both, the husband and wife would be jointly and severally liable. 21. The arbitration clause in the agreement with the wife was admittedly invoked. The learned single Judge erroneously held that there was arbitration clause between the husband and the broker also and thus there was no jurisdictional error in the Award. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge having rendered a finding that respondent no. 1 has not invoked the arbitration agreement entered into between the respondent no. 1 and the appellant, the learned single Judge ought to have interfered with the arbitral Award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal against the appellant. The impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is ex-facie, contrary to the Section 7 of the Arbitra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration proceeding filed by the respondent no. 1 against the appellant. 26. Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1, on the other hand, submits that the arbitration proceedings filed by the respondent no. 1 were under Bye-laws 248 (a) of the Mumbai Stock Exchange and was a statutory arbitration. No notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act was required to be issued prior to the date of the filing statement of claim by respondent no. 1 under the Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange Mumbai. The respondent no. 1 had filed a requisite Form i.e. Form 'AA' with the Stock Exchange with a request to refer the dispute to Arbitration. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the oral understanding between the appellant, respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 to the effect that if there was any debit balance in the account of the respondent no. 2 recoverable by the respondent no. 1, the appellant would be jointly and severally liable in respect of such liability of the respondent no. 2 was proved by his client before the Arbitral Tribunal. 27. It is submitted that such findings or facts rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal were rightly not interfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6) Banwari Lal Kotiya Vs. P.C. Aggarwal (1985) 3 SCC 255 7) Bombay Stock Exchange Vs. Jaya L. Shah Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 160 30. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange Mumbai have statutory force and have been rightly applied by the Arbitral Tribunal also against the appellant. He submits that even in the said application form filed by the respondent no. 1 before the Stock Exchange Mumbai, a reference to Bye-laws under 248 (a) was made. The said Form AA was filed by the respondent no. 1 against the respondent no. 2 as well as appellant. He relied upon paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim filed by his client and would submit that it was the specific case of his client that the appellant and the respondent no. 2 were constituents of the respondent no. 1. The Arbitral Forum had thus jurisdiction to entertain the said claim filed by the respondent no. 1 not only against the respondent no. 2 but also against the appellant. 31. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that in the written statement and the counter-claim filed by the appellant in the said Arbitral proceedings, the appellant had defended the claims m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... third party. 35. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly placed reliance on Bye-law 248(a) of the Bye-laws framed by the Stock Exchange Mumbai and would submit that the dispute under the said Bye-laws can be referred to arbitration only if all the dealings, transactions and contracts which are made subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations having taken place on the floor of exchange and not otherwise. It is submitted that no claim arising out of the alleged guarantee or surety of the appellant on behalf of his wife to the respondent no. 1 can be made subject to Bye-laws and Rules and Regulations of Stock Exchange Mumbai. He strongly placed reliance on Bye-law No. 44 which provides that for the purposes of these Bye-laws and Regulations the term bargains , transaction , dealings and contract shall have one and the same meaning unless context indicates otherwise. He submits that the words bargains dealings , transactions and contract has to be on the floor of the stock exchange for referring the dispute, if any, arising out of such bargains , contract , dealings or transactions and not otherwise. 36. It is submitted by the learned counsel that if the arguments of the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration nor such disputes could be adjudicated upon by the Arbitral Tribunal against such third party even on a consent or such third party not having raised any issue of jurisdiction. 39. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even if the appellant had not even specifically raised the issue of jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act as sought to be canvassed by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1, this being a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction, the appellant is not precluded from raising such issue of jurisdiction for the first time in the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act or across the bar. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.D., Army Welfare Housing Organization V/s. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 1344, Union of India Vs. Popular Builders, Calcuta AIR 2000 SC 3185, judgment of this Court in the case of Atul R. Shah Vs. V. Vrijlal Lalloobhai and Co. and Ors. AIR 1999 Bom 67, and the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. 43. The learned senior counsel distinguished the judgment of this Court in case of Atul R. Shah (supra) on the ground that in that matter the Arbitral Tribunal was not constituted in conformity with Section 10 of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitral Tribunal did not afford reasonable opportunities to the appellant to defend the claims made by the respondents. However, in this case the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted in conformity with not only Bye-laws of the Exchange, but also in accordance with Section 10 of the Arbitration Act. The appellant has not raised this ground before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal had given ample opportunities to the appellant as well as respondent no. 2 to present their respective defences in the matter. The appellant as well as respondent no. 2 however chose not to lead any oral evidence before the Arbitral Tribunal and thus cannot be allowed to contend that the impugned award was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 44. Learned senior counsel for the respondents distinguished the judgment of the Supreme court in case of Deutsche Post Bank Home Finance Limited (Supra) on the ground that the arbitral proceedings considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal can be conferred with jurisdiction by consent of parties in respect of the private transaction between them and not having taken place on the floor of the Bombay Stock Exchange under bye-law 248(a) of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai? (d) Whether under Bye-law 248(a) of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai providing for adjudication of the disputes arising only between the parties prescribed therein in relation to such dealings, transactions, contracts only could be invoked against a third party allegedly based on alleged guarantee or otherwise? (e) Whether the award against a third party in respect of a private transaction not falling under bye-law 248 (a) would amount to lack of inherent jurisdiction? (f) What is the effect of the respondent not raising an issue of jurisdiction specifically under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act before the Arbitral Tribunal in case of the Arbitral Tribunal having inherent lack of jurisdiction? 47. A perusal of the Arbitration Application Form under Regulation 15.2 of the Regulation of Stock Exchange, Mumbai indicates that the respondent no. 1 had made a claim against the respondent no. 2 and the appellant by invoking Bye-law 248(a), framed by the Stoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. Each individual is a separate legal entity in the eyes of law. The respondent no. 1 had entered into separate Client Broker Agreement with respect of their separate transactions and therefore, the claim as filed by the respondent no. 1 was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It was also contended by the appellant that the respondent no. 1 had acted in utter disregard and in violation of the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai and also those of SEBI which specifically inter-alia deal with the rights and liabilities of the members and the constituents. The respondent no. 1 acted without the knowledge and instructions of the appellant for their own benefit and have sought to fasten the alleged liability of the respondent no. 2 on the appellant. 51. The appellant also denied any oral understanding between the appellant and the respondents as alleged by the respondent no. 1 in the statement of case. The appellant relied upon the SEBI guidelines, Rules and Regulations in support of the contention that there can be adjustments between one client account and another only after obtaining the expres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raphs, now on compulsory Broker Client Claim Form. 54. The Arbitral Tribunal accordingly held that the Tribunal upholds the existence of such oral agreement or understanding. It is held that the appellant was mostly coming to the office of the respondent no. 1-broker and had also given instructions sometimes when the respondent no. 2 was out of town and merely under the instructions of respondent no. 2. The Arbitral Tribunal held that the counter claim filed by the appellant was a counter blast and is not sustainable after being adjusted to the account that of respondent no. 2 and accordingly, dismissed the said counter claim. In the last paragraph the Arbitral Tribunal held that it is true that as per SEBI requirement the written instructions are necessary for transfer of one constituent's account to the other. However, from the practical side of it suggests that considering past experience and considering joint and several liabilities and considering their heavenly bestowed relationship, the Tribunal uphold that such a transfer as made by the respondent no. 1 was in order. 55. The Arbitral Tribunal did not decide the issue of misjoinder of the appellant raised in the said arb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oved the illegal transfer of the credit balance of the appellant in the account of the respondent no. 2 without any express authority or otherwise in violation of Bye-law 247A and also the SEBI guidelines. The adjustment of the credit balance with the debit balance could be permitted only by and under the express authority in respect of the same client and not two separate clients. The Arbitral Award ought to have been set aside by the learned Single Judge on the ground of such perversity or patent illegality. 59. Under the said Byelaws the respondent no. 1-broker had maintained separate account of the appellant as well as respondent no. 2 and had accepted two separate forms as required under Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations. In the eyes of law appellant and the respondent no. 2 are two separate legal entities and had two separate and distinct accounts opened with the respondent no. 1. The Arbitral Tribunal however has relied upon the alleged past experience and considering heavenly bestowed relationship between husband and wife and totally ignored the mandatory Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations framed by the Stock Exchange, Mumbai and those SEBI guidelines while allowing the claim ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , fulfillment or validity or in relation thereto shall be referred to or decided by arbitration as provided in the Rules, Bye-laws and the Regulation of the Exchange. Though there was a similar arbitration clause applicable in respect of such dispute between the appellant and the respondent no. 1 in respect of all claims, differences, disputes between them as member and non-member was not invoked by respondent no. 1 when the statement of claim was filed by the respondent no. 1 jointly against the appellant and the respondent no. 2. 63. The Arbitration clause under the said Bye-law 248(a) could be invoked only in respect of dealings/transactions and contracts which were made subject to Rules, Bye-laws and regulations of the Exchange or with reference to anything incidental thereto. In this case the respondent no. 1 had alleged that the appellant had orally agreed and there being an oral understanding between appellant and respondent no. 1 that the dues, if any, of respondent no. 2 towards the respondent no. 1 would be cleared by the appellant. In our view, there were those two separate causes of action i.e. (i) Between the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court accepted the contention raised by the respondent Nos. 1 that the appellant was rightly impleaded as a party respondent in the said application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment adverted to earlier judgment in case of S.N. Prasad v/s. Monnet Finance Limited and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 320. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment in case of S.N. Prasad (supra) had held that there could be reference to arbitration only if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. If there is a dispute between a party to an arbitration agreement, with other parties to the arbitration agreement as also non-parties to the arbitration agreement, reference to arbitration or appointment of arbitrator can only be with respect to the parties to the arbitration agreement and not the non-parties. As there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, the impleadment of appellant as a respondent in the proceedings and the award against the appellant in such arbitration cannot be sustained. 67. The Hon'ble Supreme Court gave an illustration that if 'X' enters into two contracts, one with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he developer. It is held that if there had been an arbitration clause in the tripartite agreement amongst the first respondent, developer and the appellant and if the first respondent had made claims or raised dispute against petitioner, developer and the appellant with reference to such tripartite agreement, the position would have been different. But that is not so. The petition under Section 11 of the Act against the appellant was therefore misconceived as the appellant was not a party to the construction agreement entered into between the respondent no. 1 and the developer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accordingly allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court insofar as appellant is concerned. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment apply to the facts of this case. 70. In view of Bye-law 248(a), neither there could be any tripartite agreement between the parties nor the respondent No. 1 produced any such Tripartite Agreement. Admittedly, the respondent no. 1 had not invoked the arbitration agreement between the appellant and the respondent no. 1 and had illegally clubbed the two separate causes of action in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by one of us (R.D. Dhanuka, J.). In this case also, the arbitral tribunal lacked inherent jurisdiction to deal with the claim against the appellant arising out of private transaction not governed by bye-law 248(a). 73. This Court in case of Smt. Prema Amarlal Gera v/s. The Memon Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. (2017) 2 Bom CR 800, had considered the arbitration petition filed by a third party (not a party to the arbitration agreement) but was allowed to intervene on his application in the arbitral proceedings by the learned arbitrator. The learned arbitrator made an award also against the said third party. This Court in the said judgment delivered by one of us (R.D. Dhanuka, J.) held that under Section 84(1) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short 'the said Act 2002'), the dispute between the persons who are described in the said provision only could be referred to arbitration and though the intervener did not fall under any of those provisions described in Section 84(1) of the said Act 2002, the learned arbitrator without application of mind and contrary to Section 84(1) allowed the intervention application to intervene in the arbitral proceedings. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bitration prescribing the parties whose disputes can be referred to arbitration in relation to dealings, transactions and contract made subject to Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange, the arbitral tribunal having lack of inherent jurisdiction, the appellants are not precluded from raising such objection even after declaration of award. In our view, even if the appellant had entered into any such oral understanding with the respondent no. 1 to clear the dues of the respondent no. 2, respondent no. 1, such alleged understanding given by the appellant would not fall within the purview of Bye-law 248(a). No third party even by consent of the party could be impleaded as a party respondent to the arbitral proceedings under the said Bye-law 248(a) which was admittedly a statutory arbitration. 77. In our view, if the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 are accepted, any dispute between the broker and a constituent even arising out of any private transactions not falling under Bye-law 248(a) for example:- money lending transaction, property dispute, partnership dispute, claim for damages etc. occurred which obviously would not take place on the floor of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st any party falling under Bye-law 248(a) was not required to give any notice invoking arbitration agreement under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act and is required to file requisite form alongwith statement of claim before the Stock Exchange, Mumbai. 81. In case of Union of India v/s. Popular Builders (supra) relied upon by Mr. Jagtiani, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the fact that the appellant had not only filed a statement of defence but also raised a counter claim against the respondent. The appellant had also not raised the objection with regard to the competent jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal before the learned arbitrator which amounted the waiver under Section 4 read with Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. In our view, the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court would not assist the case of the respondent no. 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment was not dealing with any statutory arbitration prescribed under Bye-law 248(a) that also describing the parties between whom only differences and dispute, if any, could be referred to the mechanism of arbitration prescribed under the said Bye-la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions had taken place as alleged by the first respondent and therefore the appellant and the second respondent were liable for the amounts claimed. The arbitral tribunal made an award allowing the claim against the appellant and the second respondent. The second respondent did not contest the award. The appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The dispute between the parties was that Bye-law 248(a) did not apply to a dispute between two members. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the arbitration in that case was not an ad-hoc arbitration under the arbitration agreement executed between the parties but was an institutional arbitration under the Bye-laws of the Exchange. 85. The Hon'ble Supreme Court gave an illustration that if 'A' had a claim against 'B' and 'C' and there was an arbitration agreement between 'A' and 'B' but there was no arbitration agreement between 'A' and 'C', it might not be possible to have a joint arbitration against 'B' and 'C'. 'A' cannot make a claim against 'C' in an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough all such parties were party to such statutory arbitration. The respondent no. 1 admittedly not having invoked the arbitration agreement against the appellant under bye-law 248(a), the appellant could not have been impleaded as a party respondent to the statement of claim filed by the respondent no. 1 and that too in respect of a private transaction. The entire award insofar as the appellant is concerned, was thus without jurisdiction. 89. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bombay Stock Exchange v/s. Jaya I. Shah and Anr. (supra) has held that the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations framed by the Bombay Stock Exchange had received the approval of the Central Government and are statutory bye-laws. The Bye-laws framed by the Exchange also provide the mode and manner in which the arbitration proceedings can be taken recourse to both by the members and non-members against the defaulters. The Rules in this behalf however are distinct and separate. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. 90. In our view, none of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant could be distinguished by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In our view, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the award on the ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the findings rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal being totally perverse and contrary to bye-laws, rules and regulations of Stock Exchange, Mumbai, award was liable to be set aside on that ground itself. 93. In so far as the reliance placed on the statement of claim, by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 in support of the submission that the appellant as well as the respondent no. 2 were impleaded as Constituents of the respondent no. 1 and thus the Arbitral Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claims against the appellant as well as the respondent no. 2 is concerned, in our view, there is no merit in this submission. The respondent no. 1 had not made any claim against the appellant as the constituent arising out of two separate accounts, but had filed claim against two separate constituents in the same statement of claim based on two separate causes of action. One of such causes of action and more particularly against the respondent no. 2 which was arising out of the transaction traded on the floor of the Stock Exchange, Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
