The court emphasized the finality of the Arbitral Tribunal's evaluation of evidence and material, and upheld the findings based on an independent conclusion.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The appellant (SMC Global Securities Ltd.) has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act') impugning an order dated 05.09.2022 (hereafter `the impugned order'), passed by the learned Commercial Court in ARBTN No.5350 of 2017 captioned SMC Global Securities Ltd. v. Pankaj Singh (earlier known as Love Kumar) and Anr.. By way of the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court had dismissed the appellant's application under Section 34 of the A&C Act for setting aside the arbitral award dated 15.06.2017 (hereafter `the impugned award') rendered by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the National Stock Exchange (NSE) Bye Laws, Rules and Regulations (hereafter `the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal'). In terms of the impugned award, the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal, had upheld an arbitral award dated 16.03.2017, made by the learned Sole Arbitrator (hereafter `the Arbitral Tribunal'), allowing respondent no. 1's claim to the extent of Rs.1,09,706/-.

2. The appellant is registered as a company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 11/6B Shanti Chambers, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110005. The appellant is a stock broker and a trading member of the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE).

3. Respondent no.1 (Mr. Love Kumar, now known as Mr. Pankaj Singh) is an investor and had opened an account with the appellant on 24.12.2015 in cash, Futures and Options (F&O), and currency segment of the NSE and the BSE, in order to avail the appellant's services as a broker. He was provided with the unique client code, OFG0094 along with the details of his trading account.

4. The dispute between the parties relates to two transactions. First, is a transaction in the shares of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (relating to Contract No. A16Q00809025 dated 12.08.2016). This transaction had resulted in a loss of Rs.11,306.31/- (Rupees eleven thousand three hundred six and thirty-one paise only). According to respondent no.1, he had not authorised purchase or sale of the shares in question; therefore, could not be mulcted with the loss arising from this transaction. The second transaction relates to the sale of two lots of shares (3000 x 2) in State Bank of India Ltd. (SBI) in the future segment expiring on 25.08.2016 (SBI FUTSTK 25-Aug-16). Respondent no.1 had purchased the said two lots and claims that the same were unauthorisedly sold by the appellant on the same date. The value of the said shares had increased on the same date and therefore, the appellant claims that it was entitled to be compensated on account of the profit that it would have earned. According to the respondent no.1, the appellant was not instructed to square up the said position.

5. Respondent no.1 raised his grievances against the said transactions on 16.08.2016 and again on 21.08.2016. And, on 03.10.2016 lodged a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding the same.

6. Thereafter, the NSE referred the disputed transaction to the Investors Grievance Redressal Panel (IGRP) for conciliation which was scheduled on 25.10.2016. At the said meeting, the parties had tried to resolve the said dispute amicably. However, the Conciliation failed and the said proceedings were closed.

7. Thereafter, on 18.01.2017, respondent no.1 invoked the arbitration clause under the Rules and Bye Laws of the NSE. The NSE referred the disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator.

8. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, respondent no.1 raised two claims: Claim no.1 for a sum of Rs.11,306.31/- on account of loss on account of sale and purchase transactions in the shares of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals. Claim no.2 for a sum of Rs.1,96,200/-arising out of the unauthorized sale of 6000 shares of SBI in the future segment (SBI FUTSTK 25-Aug-16). The respondent no.1 had purchased two lots (6000 shares of SBI FUT