Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. (i) These are two appeals filed against the same judgment of the court below dated 6.5.2016.

(ii) FAO No. 435/2016 is filed by M/s Angel Broking Ltd., respondent in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in the court below, and which was also the respondent in the arbitration proceedings. This FAO No. 435/2016 is filed impugning the judgment dated 6.5.2016 of the court below which while dismissing the objections filed by Ms. Sharda Kapur under Section 34 of the Act, (the respondent in FAO No.435/2016) seeking relief of the return of the shares, however granted interest at the rate of 18% per annum with annual rest w.e.f 31.8.2012 till realization on the principal amount of Rs.21,70,143/- and which relief was not granted by the Arbitration Award. The court below has also awarded compensation of Rs.5 lacs to the respondent Ms. Sharda Kapur, and which relief is also a relief which was not granted by the Award.

(iii) FAO No.492/2016 is filed by Ms. Sharda Kapur, the objector in the court below under Section 34 of the Act. Objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed pleading that the Arbitration Award should not have granted the monetary amount but instead the Arbitration Tribunal by the Award should have directed return of the shares which were illegally traded and sold by the broking firm M/s Angel Broking Ltd.

2. The crux of the disputes between the parties was the allegation of Ms. Sharda Kapur that her broking firm M/s Angel Broking Ltd. did various trades in future and option segment in the market without her consent and knowledge, and therefore, M/s Angel Broking Ltd. was bound to return the shares which were illegally traded in the future and option segment of the market.

3. The facts of the case are very aptly stated by the court below in paras 3 to 11 of the impugned judgment, and therefore, instead of my own language I would reproduce these paras 3 to 11, and which paras read as under:-

“3. The case of the Objector/Claimant as per claim petition dated 04.09.2012 is that she is widow aged 76 years. She entered into a Member-Client Agreement with M/s Angel Broking Ltd. in the year 2004-2005. She used to undertake both long term and short term investments in the stock market and used to place orders telephonically. As on 01.04.2011 she had a credit of about Rs.3.34 lacs in BSE Account and a debit of Rs.3.98 lacs in NSE Account maintained by her with M/s. Angel Broking Ltd. As per her case even though she was suggested by Branch Manager of the respondent to trade in Future & Options but she declined the same on the plea that she cannot take risk or afford looses on account of risks involved therein at her current age and position.

4. Still sometimes in August 2011 she was apprised by the same Manger Shri Rakesh Sharma that there is debit balance of around Rs.6 lacs and that she needs to deposit some payment. She apprised Mr. Sharma that after setting of her credit balance in the BSE account her maximum debit should be around Rs.2.6 lacs against which she paid sum of Rs.1.5 lacs by cheque. But still within a month thereof she was told that her debit balance has now become Rs.11 lacs instead of the same reduced to Rs.1.1 lac. She took up the issue with the Regional Office of M/s Angel Broking Ltd. at Moti Nagar and was told that there were transactions in the F&O Segment in which a loss of around Rs.10 lacs was booked.

5. Despite all her complaints and objections, her debit balance rose to almost Rs.20 lacs on 31.10.2011 apparently, as Shri Rakesh Sharma was trading in her F&O Account without any intimation or knowledge. This debit balance peaked to Rs.27.16 lacs on 29.08.2012 on account of these unauthorized transactions.

6. On 18.06.2012 and 07.08.2012 Ms. Sharda made a complaint to M/s. Angel’s Head office and SEBI respectively. M/s. Angel denied that they are at fault and the closed her complaint.

7. On 29.08.2012 s