JUDGMENT - D.K. DESHMUKH, J.:---By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 13th November 1998 made by the sole Arbitrator-National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. The only ground on which the award is challenged is that the claim is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents filed their statement of case. In the said statement of case, they stated that they are customer of the petitioners and they sold securities through the petitioners by contract notes dated 6th September 1996 and 4th October 1996 and for discharging the liability incurred by the petitioners because of that sale, the petitioners issued cheques on 30th June 1997. Those cheques were presented to the bank immediately, however they were dishonoured and therefore the respondents made a claim for Rs. 6,90,000/- with interest. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is clear from the statement of the claim filed by the respondents that cause of action arose to the respondents on 6th September 1996 and 4th October 1996. He submits that according to Regulation No. 5 of the Regulations framed by the respondent No. 2-Stock Exchange, a reference of a claim to arbitration can be made within a period of three months from the date on which the claim arises. In the present case, the reference has admittedly been made on 13th March 1998 and therefore according to the learned Counsel, the claim was barred by the limitation as prescribed by Regulation No. 5 on the date on which it was referred to the Arbitrator. The learned Counsel submits that this objection was specifically raised before the Arbitrator, however the Arbitrator on a total misconception and misconstruction of Bye-laws and Regulations of respondent No. 2 stock exchange has overruled this objection and awarded the claim. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hands submits that the cause of action does not accrue to the respondents on 6th September 1996 and 4th October, 1996 the dates on which the securities were sold, but on expiry of a period of six months from 30th June 1997 because according to the learned Counsel, the cheques continue to be valid for a period of six months from the date of its issue. The learned Counsel also advanced some submissions on the basis of the provisions of section 34 and section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 but I must state that I was not able to comprehend the submissions made by the learned Counsel. Therefore, I am unable to deal with those submissions.

2.Now, in the light of these rival submissions that I have been able to understand, if the record of the case is perused, it becomes clear from the statement of the claim filed by the respondents themselves that the cause of action for raising the claim arose on 6th September 1996 and 4th October 1996. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents, however is that the cause of action would not arise on 30th June 1997 when the cheques were issued, it will also not arise when the cheques were dishonoured in August 1997, but according to the learned Counsel the cause of action would arise in December 1997 when the period of six months of the validity of the cheques expired. In my opinion this submission is merely to be stated to be rejected. According to the respondent the cheques were issued on 30-6-1997, they were dishonoured in July, 1997. Even if it is assumed that the dispute did not arise when the securities were sold, the cause of action would definitely arise in July, 1997 when the cheques were dishonoured. In August, 1997 the respondent not only issued notice demanding the amount but also filed proceedings under section 138 r/w section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and also issued statutory notice under section 434 of the Companies Act demanding the amount. It is thus clear from the conduct of the respondent that the amount had become due to it from the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document