Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. The Objector, Cmdr. S.P. Puri (retd.) has filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) challenging the Award dated 13th July, 2005 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, consisting of three Arbitrators appointed by the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.

2. By the impugned Award, the Arbitral Tribunal has rejected claims of the Objector and allowed counter claim of respondent-M/s. Alankit Assignments Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondent or AAL, for short) of Rs. 32,72,631/- less Rs. 15,00,000/- deposited by the Objector as margin money.

3. At the very outset I may point out that the learned Counsel for the respondent-AAL has admitted that there is a mistake/error in calculations made by the learned Arbitrators. Out of the total amount of Rs. 32,72,631/-, the respondent-AAL had realised Rs. 43,663.46 on 26th August, 2004 from sale of shares of Bhagyanagar Metals Ltd. and Rs. 24,675/- was credited to the account of the Objector on 5th November, 2004 on receipt of dividend from Reliance Industries Ltd. Thus, Rs. 32,28,968/- is claimed by the respondent-AAL as due and payable after adjustment of the said amounts. The statement is taken on record and the award is modified/corrected to this extent.

4. I do not agree with the contention of the Objector that the Award dated 13th July, 2005 should be set aside on this ground alone, as there is an error in calculation, which is apparent and can be corrected by this Court without in any manner interfering with the reasoning and the grounds given by the learned Arbitrators. It cannot be said that the error or mistake in calculation made by the learned Arbitrators goes to the root of the matter and affects the reasoning and the grounds given by the Learned Arbitrators in support of their decision.

5. The learned Arbitrators in their Award have rejected the claim of the Objector that he had invested Rs. 14.40 lakhs and also deposited shares worth Rs. 3.5 lakhs with the respondent on the guarantee and agreement that he would be entitled to interest @ 24% per annum on the aforesaid amount.

6. Learned Counsel for the Objector had submitted that the learned Arbitrators while rejecting the claim made by the Objector and partly allowing the claim made by the respondent have not discussed various contentions and pleas raised by the objector. Learned Counsel in this regard had drawn my attention to the written submissions of the Objector filed before the learned Arbitrators. It is also pointed.out that in view of Section 31(3) of the Act, Arbitrators are required to give a reasoned award.

7. Learned Arbitrators have given their reasoning to reject the claim of the Objector and partly allowing the claim of the respondent as mentioned in paragraphs 13 to 18 of the award. The reasoning given by the learned Arbitrators is explicit, logical and lucid. Learned Arbitrators have referred to the pleadings of the Objector and his own averments in the complaint that there was no necessity to follow SEBI/NSE Rules. Learned Arbitrators have stated that if that be so, the arbitration proceedings were not maintainable under the NSE Rules and Bye-laws. It may be noted here that as per the NSE Rules and SEBI Guidelines, no broker can make a promise or enter into an agreement for a fixed rate of return.

8. Learned Arbitrators have given the following reasons for dismissing claims made by the Objector and partially accepting the claim of the respondent-AAL; firstly, claim of the Objector is not supported by documents. Documents in form of agreements between the parties establish that the relationship between them was that of a broker and trader. Secondly, claims of the Objector were not legal as his claims were based on the plea that the parties did not consider it necessary to follow SEBI/NSE Rules. Thirdly, the contention of the Objector that he did not know or even have Speed-e account or password is