JUDGMENT - DESHMUKH D.K., J.: - The learned Counsel appearing for both sides are agreed that common question of law and facts are involved in these two petitions, therefore, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

2.In Arbitration Petition No. 595 of 2001, award dated 29th May, 2001, which was amended by order dated 20th July, 2001 and 23rd July, 2001, is challenged.In Arbitration Petition No. 594 of 2001, interim award dated 2nd March, 2001 and the award dated 29th May, 2001 is challenged.

3.By the award challenged in Arbitration Petition No. 595 of 2001 the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 16,69,508/- which was reduced by order dated 23rd July, 2001 to Rs. 16,17,799/-. This amount is directed to be paid with interest which is specified in the Award. The respondent No. 1 has been directed, on receiving payment from the petitioners, to deliver certain securities to the petitioner.

By the award which is challenged in the Arbitration Petition No. 594 of 2001, the petitioner in that petition is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 17,13,720/- with interest to the respondent No. 1.

4.Facts that are relevant and material for deciding these two petitions are that the respondent No. 1 in both these petitions filed arbitration reference in the Arbitration Dispute Cell of the Bombay Stock Exchange contending that he was member of the Bombay Stock Exchange till 27-1-1998 from which date he has been declared as defaulter. According to the respondent No. 1, Shri Omprakash Roongta who is petitioner in Arbitration Petition No. 595 of 2001 was his constituent. According to statement of claims submitted by the respondent No. 1 during 1994 the said Omprakash approached the respondent No. 1 for carrying out transaction in shares on his behalf. In view of the order that I propose to pass in these petitions, it is not necessary to go into details of the transactions between the parties. Suffice to say that according to the respondent No. 1 as a result of transaction conducted by him into shares of the Stock Exchange on behalf of the said Omprakash certain amounts became payable to him. Similarly, at the instance of the said Omparakash he conducted transactions on behalf of the members of the family of said Omprakash who are petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 594 of 2001 and certain amounts also became recoverable by him from them. After the matter was referred to arbitration, before the Arbitral Tribunal the petitioners appeared and contested the claims.

It may be pointed out here that an objection to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange to entertain the dispute was raised on behalf of the petitioners. The objection was that though the reference was filed in November, 1997, before the reference was decided the respondent No. 1 was declared a defaulter on 27-1-1998 and his membership of the Stock Exchange was cancelled and therefore the Arbitral Tribunal loses the jurisdiction to entertain the claim. That objection has been overruled by the Arbitral Tribunal on the ground that objection was raised late. The Arbitral Tribunal after hearing the parties on the basis of the documents produced on record made its awards which have been referred to above. These awards have been challenged in these two petitions. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners advanced various submissions including submissions on the merits of the controversy. But in view of the order that I propose to make, in my opinion, only two submissions are required to be dealt with and decided upon.

i) Whether because of cancellation of the membership of the respondent No. 1, the Arbitral Tribunal of the Bombay Stock Exchange would lose the jurisdiction to make the award;

ii) Whether one of the arbitrators namely Shri R.B. Khandelwal who is respondent No. 2 failed to perform the duty cast on him by section 12 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act and therefore the awards made by the Ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document