Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V.MARNE
Nimish Chandulal Shah – Appellant
Versus
Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the dispute concerning securities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioners argue against claims of forum shopping. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court analysis on jurisdiction and remedies in arbitration. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. doctrine of election is not applicable here. (Para 38 , 39 , 41) |
| 5. final conclusion to set aside the arbitral award. (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
JUDGMENT:
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1) By this Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), Petitioners have challenged the Award dated 29 April 2024 passed by the three-member Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the Central Depository Services India Ltd (CDSL). By the impugned Award, the Arbitral Tribunal has rejected the claim of the Petitioner for restoration of their securities or in the alternative for award of sum of Rs.34,72,75,447/-, being the market value of securities.
FACTS
2) Petitioners are the trading members, who had opened their respective trading and Demat Accounts with Anugrah Stock and Broking Private Limited (Anugrah), who was both a Stock Broker on NSE India Ltd (NSE), as well as a Depository Partici
The refusal to adjudicate the claim due to alleged forum shopping without determining the merits of the case is irrational and dismisses Petitioners’ independent right for relief based on statutory i....
A depository is liable to indemnify investors for losses due to negligent acts of its Depository Participant, demonstrating the interconnected responsibilities of financial institutions in preventing....
The initiation of arbitration is impermissible due to an existing moratorium that restrains all legal proceedings, including arbitration, until the related insolvency matters are resolved.
An indiscreet e-mail by his wife, who was not even party to proceedings nor party to Deed of Settlement which contained arbitration clause, by itself cannot deny respondent of his dues.
An arbitration award cannot be invalidated for unilateral appointment of arbitrators if the parties had the opportunity to nominate their respective arbitrators through an independent institute, main....
Profits from trades executed on erroneously credited margin belong to the client, not the broker, as retention by the broker amounts to unjust enrichment.
An arbitral tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim against a third party arising out of a private transaction not governed by an arbitration clause.
A party must raise jurisdictional objections in arbitration proceedings; failure to do so waives the right to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
