2011 (7) Supreme 249
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
P.R. Shah, Shares & Stock Broker (P) Ltd. — Appellant
versus
M/s. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.9238 of 2003
Decided on : 14-10-2011
(b) Mumbai Stock Exchange Bye-Laws – Bye-law 282 – When one party has separate arbitration agreements with two different parties, there is no impediment in holding a joint arbitration – Rather it would avoid conflicting awards by two different arbitration Tribunals. (Para 14)
(2003) 5 SCC 531 – Distinguished
(c) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – A court does not sit in appeal over the award of an arbitral tribunal – It cannot appreciate and re-appreciate the facts to find out whether a different decision could be arrived at. (Para 15)
(d) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31 – Arbitral tribunal cannot make use of their personal knowledge of the facts of the dispute, which is not a part of the record, to decide the dispute – But it can certainly use their expert or technical knowledge or the general knowledge about the particular trade, in deciding a matter. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
This case relates to disputes between members of the Mumbai Stock Exchange.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
JUDGMENT
R.V. Raveendran, J.
The appellant and the first respondent are members of the Mumbai Stock Exchange, the third respondent herein (‘Exchange’ for short). The constitution, management and dealings of the Exchange are governed by the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange. The Rules relate to the constitution and management of the Exchange. The Bye-laws regulate and control the dealings, transactions, bargains and contracts of its members with other members and non-members. The Regulations contain the detailed procedure regarding the various aspects covered by the Bye-laws. Though the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange were not made under any statutory provision, they have a statutory flavour. Bye-laws 248 to 281D provide for and govern the arbitration between members and non-members and Bye-laws 282 to 315L provide for and govern the arbitration between members of the Exchange.
2. The first respondent raised and referred a dispute against the second respondent and the appellant under the Rules, Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Mumbai Stock Exchange on 29.8.1998 (Arbitration Reference No.242/1998) seeking an award for a sum of ‘ 36,98,384.73 with interest at 24% per annum on ‘ 35,42,197.50. In the said Arbitration Reference, the first respondent alleged that appellant and second respondent are sister concerns with Ms. Kanan C. Sheth as a common Director; that Ms. Kanan C. Sheth approached the first respondent to get the carry forward sauda in respect of 50,000 shares of BPL and 15,000 shares of Sterlite Industries Ltd. transferred with the first respondent on behalf of the second respondent which was outstanding with the appellant; that in pursuance of it, on 4.6.1998, the first respondent got the sauda of 15,000 shares of BPL and 15,000 shares of Sterlite transferred to its account through a negotiated deal which is commonly known as ‘all or none’; that in respect of the said transactions, the first respondent prepared, issued and delivered the contract and bill in favour of second respondent [Contract No. F.11/4/002 dated 4.6.1998 and Bill No.A/11/0236 dated 11.6.1998 for ‘ 1,07,30,400/- and Bill No.A.11/0236 dated 11.6.1998 for ‘15,50,670/-]; that as the said amount remained due, the first respondent approached the appellant and second respondent for clearing the said dues; that after several demands, the appellant issued a credit kapli (Credit Slip No.49147 dated 11.6.1998) for payment of ‘13 lakhs to first respondent along with a copy of the balance-sheet (Form No.31) for settlement (A11/98-99 for ‘ 13 lakhs); that the said kapli was rejected by the Exchange; that the first respondent, therefore, immediately approached the appellant and second respondent and demanded a cheque for the said amount of ‘ 15,50,670/-; that in that behalf, the appellant issued cheque (No.992090 dated 11.6.1998) for ‘ 13 lakhs leaving a balance of ‘250,670/-; that thereafter prices of the said scripts were falling down and the first respondent requested the appellant and second respondent to get the said souda re-transferred to their account; that they failed to do so, but kept on assuring that there was nothing to worry; that ultimately, at the request of the appellant and second respondent, the souda of 15000 shares of Sterlite was squared by selling the said shares and in respect of the squaring up of the said souda, a bill dated 19.6.1998 for ‘ 23,89,610.50 was raised by the first respondent for the amount due by appellant and second respondent; that when the first respondent demanded from appellant and second respondent the amounts due; they paid to the first respondent a sum of ‘ 4.5 lakhs in cash on 18/19.6.1998; that as the souda for the 15,000 shares of BPL still remained outstanding despite requests of the first respondent to square up the same, the first respondent carried forward the said 15,000 shares of BPL to Settlement No.13 and raised a bill dated 26.6.1998 showing ‘ 8,09,850/- as due to the first res
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.