The violation of mandatory circulars, bye-laws, and business rules of the Multi Commodity Exchange of India by the respondent rendered the transactions unauthorized. The court found the award to be patently illegal and perverse due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the arbitral tribunal's findings.

1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said 'Arbitration Act'), the petitioner has impugned portion of the award dated 18th June, 2012 and the supplementary award dated 17th April, 2015 made by the arbitral tribunal thereby rejecting part of the claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:-

2. The petitioner was the original claimant whereas the respondent was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner who was the original claimant before the arbitral tribunal is hereinafter referred to as the claimant and the respondent who was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings is hereinafter referred to as the respondent.

3. The respondent is a registered stock broker with the Securities and Exchange Board of India and also with the Bombay Stock Exchange, National Stock Exchange of India and Multi Commodity Exchange.

4. It is the case of the respondent that the claimant approached the respondent in the month of March 2011 for the purpose of opening a trading and demat account in order to purchase and sell commodities from the Commodity market both in the Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. On 10th March 2011, the parties executed an agreement for opening a trading and demat account for trading in stock market, commodity market segment and future and option market. The respondent agreed to act as an intermediary of the claimant for the purpose of purchasing and selling of commodities from the commodity market.

5. It is the case of the claimant that one Mr. Priotosh Ghosh, an employee of respondent was introduced to the claimant by her brother in law as an experienced stock market advisor and responsible and senior employee of the respondent, who represented the rosy picture of high returns and huge profits within a short time by investing money in commodities in Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited (for short MCX) through the respondent.

6. Husband of the claimant is a seaman and was posted on ship through out the year. It is the case of the claimant that the said Priotosh Ghosh took personal details of the claimant and filled up registration form and obtained various documents from the claimant and also a cheque of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the respondent. The said Mr. Priotosh Ghosh also demanded the e.mail address of the claimant. Since the claimant did not have any e.mail address of her own, she reluctantly provided e.mail address of her husband. It is the case of the claimant that she specifically instructed the said Priotosh Ghosh that all communications issued to her should be sent to her in physical form.

7. It is the case of the claimant that during the period between 14th March 2011 and 5th May 2011, the said Priotosh Ghosh on behalf of respondent collected an aggregate sum of Rs.27,50,000/- from the claimant in five installments, last of such installment was on 5th May 2011. The said Priotosh Ghosh represented to the claimant that the claimant was a nett gainer from the handful trades which she had instructed him to make in her account. It is the case of the claimant that on or about 11th May 2011 to her shock and surprise the said Priotosh Ghosh informed her for the first time that there was a reduction in her account to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs. The said Priotosh Ghosh attributed the said reduction to the fall in the global market in the aftermath of killing of Osama Bin Laden.

8. On 4th July 2011, the claimant joined her husband at Port Klang, Malaysia and returned to India on or about 25th August 2011. It is the case of the claimant that on 5th September 2011, the claimant received a telephone call from a person who refused to disclose his identity and claimed that there had been huge volume of unauthorised trading in the claimant's account as a result whereof the balance in the claimant's account had been almost