(Per A.K. Menon, J.)

1. The Appellants in the four appeals are family members. The Appellants have challenged the order and judgment of the learned Judge, dismissing their petitions under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenging the awards passed against them.

2. The learned Single Judge held that the awards were based on appreciation of evidence adduced before the arbitral tribunal consisting of persons who have knowledge of the trade on the basis whereof they had recorded findings of fact. The impugned order contains no other reasons. The learned counsel for both the parties however, requested us to hear the entire case and not to remand the same stating that that would cause them enormous prejudice. We accordingly did so.

3. The facts in each case are similar except as to the amounts claimed and the evidence produced. We propose to deal with the facts of Appeal No.580 of 2004 alone in detail. It was agreed that the result in the other appeals would follow the result in Appeal No.580 of 2004.

4. The Appellant and his family members were constituents of the Respondents in March, 1987 when the Respondents were declared a defaulter. Prior to April, 1983, the Respondents acted as their share-broker and during the relevant period several transactions had taken place including for purchase and sale of shares as well as carry forward transactions.

5. The Respondents invoked arbitration and filed a claim against the Appellants for a sum of Rs.11,45,000/- towards principal and Rs.2,00,375/- towards interest. The Appellants counter claimed Rs.1,61,280/-. Similar claims were made by the Respondents against the other Appellants who also made counter claims.

On 30th May, 1998 the arbitrators made their awards directing the Appellants in the above appeals to pay Rs.11,02,250/-, Rs.4,58,569/-, Rs.6,42,806/- and Rs.8,72,261/- respectively. Vide an order dated 18th October, 1999, this Court set aside the awards upon the Appellants depositing the amounts awarded and remanded the matters to the arbitrators.

6. Thereafter, the parties proceeded with the arbitral reference before a different arbitrator on account of the resignation of the earlier arbitrator. The parties led oral evidence and eventually, the arbitral tribunal passed an award on 17th June, 2003 thereby directing the Appellant in Appeal No.580 of 2004 to pay the Respondents a sum of Rs.18,60,100/-. Awards were passed against the other Appellants. Being aggrieved by the said awards, the Appellants filed the above Arbitration Petitions under section 30 the Act to set aside the awards which were rejected by the learned single Judge.

7. Mr.Narula, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants challenged the awards on the following grounds :-

I). The awards are contrary to the bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange.

II). The awards are based on no evidence.

III). The findings in the awards are perverse.

IV). The awards are contrary to the rules of the natural justice.

V). The awards ignored the relevant evidence.

Re : I). The awards are contrary to the bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange.

Mr.Narula contended that the awards are contrary to the following bye-laws of the BSE :-

“Contracts Notes

219. The contract notes rendered by members to nonmembers shall state that the contract is subject to the Rules, Bye-laws, Regulations and usages of the Exchange and subject to arbitration as provided in the Rules. Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange and subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts in Bombay. The contract notes shall not contain any provision inconsistent with the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange. The names of the partners or the sole proprietor of a firm shall be printed on the contract notes. The contract notes shall also be in such form as will provide that the words “Member(s) of The Stock Exchange, Bombay” shall immediately follow the signature. Carry-Over Contracts

222(a) The contract notes rendered by members to non-members in respe