JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:-Petitioner by the present petition impugns the Award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 17th January, 2001. By the said Award, the Arbitral Tribunal upheld the objections of the respondents herein that the claim was barred by limitation and accordingly rejected the reference. That Award has been impugned on the ground that the transactions were transaction before the bye-laws of Stock Exchange came to be amended and consequently they would not apply to transactions or in respect of a cause of action which had arisen before the bye-laws were amended. The transactions between the parties were of the year 1991-1992. The amendment to the bye-laws was brought into force on 29-8-1998. Earlier, petition had filed an arbitration reference on 6-11-1997 in respect of the same subject matter. It was numbered as Reference No. 278 of 1997 and was withdrawn on 5-8-1998. It is subsequent to this that the fresh reference was made to the Arbitral Tribunal. As noted earlier, the material on record shows that the transactions between the parties were of the year 1991-92. The last entry in the books of accounts was on 22-3-1993.

The case of the petitioner is that there was a fire in the office of the petitioner on 1-8-1994. After reconstructing the records, it was seen that large amounts of moneys were due and payable by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. Petitioner after reconstructing the records 6-11-1998 filed arbitration reference before the Bombay Stock Exchange under the Rules, bye-laws and regulations of the Stock Exchange. The reference made was numbered as Reference No. 278 of 1997 filed against one Sajjan Kumar Jagodia and Associates. At the time the first reference made, there was no period of limitation in respect of claims between a Member and Constituent and vice versa. Before the Arbitral Tribunal varied objections were raised in view of which applicant was allowed to withdraw the reference on 5-8-1998 with liberty to file new reference.

Petitioners pursuant to the liberty granted, filed application for reference on 11-10-1999. The same was referred and was numbered as Arbitration Reference No. 234 of 1999. As already set out, the bye-laws of the Stock Exchange were amended from 29-8-1998. By the amendment limitation has now been provided in respect of transactions between Members and Constituents. The respondents herein before the arbitrators raised preliminary objection that the claim preferred was barred by limitation and consequently the reference ought to be dismissed. The Arbitral Tribunal considered the above contention arrived at the conclusion that the bye-laws as amended would apply to the present reference as it was filed on 11-10-1999 and the bye-laws has come into force on 5-8-1998. The Arbitral Tribunal noted that the last entry in the books of accounts had been made on 22-3-1993. After excluding the period between 21-5-1998 to 5-8-1998 the Arbitral Tribunal found that the dispute was barred by limitation and therefore, rejected the reference.

2. At the hearing of the petition, on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that considering the findings by the Arbitral Tribunal itself that the last entry in the Books of Account being 22-3-1993, these would be transactions before the bye-laws were amended on 29-8-1998. The amended bye-laws would only apply to transactions after the amendment and not cover transactions in respect of which cause of action had arisen before the amendment. Considering the issue involved and as it would affect other references, notice was issued to the Bombay Stock Exchange as to their stand on the issue. It was the Bombay Stock Exchange that had framed the bye-law. On behalf of the Bombay Stock Exchange, their learned Counsel after taking instructions has made a statement to this Court that it is the stand of the Bombay Stock Exchange that only transaction which have been entered into after 29-8-1998 would be covered by the amended by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document