The court emphasized that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it cannot modify arbitral awards but can only set them aside on limited grounds, reaffirming the exclusivity of arbitral tribunal authority.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral)--An appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1996") read with Section 13 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been filed against the order dated 20th March, 2018 vide which the objections under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 has been allowed and the appellant is directed to pay Rs.18,20,982.75 to the respondent along with interest @ 6% per annum.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 2013. It is a Member of National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) and provides trading in shares and securities in the cash market as well as the derivative market. The respondent opened a Demat-cum-Trading Account somewhere in the year 2007 with the appellant for the purpose of buying and selling of shares on the platform of National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange respectively with Angel Capital & Debt Marketing Ltd. (ACDL) and Angel Broking Ltd. (ABL). Both the Companies subsequently merged and amalgamated into Angel Broking (Pvt.) Ltd. The respondent in her claim before the Arbitrator had stated that she had been dealing with Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd. since the year 2007 and her dealings were confined to sale and purchase of shares against cash payment only. According to her Member Client Agreement and Risk Disclosure Statement dated 23rd August, 2010 respondent had clearly prohibited contract notes to be sent by email in an electric form and for receiving SMS alerts for the said Agreement. The Agreement further prohibited maintenance of account on a running account basis and also adjustment inter se between the group companies of the respondent including and with respect to the Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd. or the trades carried out in any other Segments/Exchanges. The contract importantly provided for a term with respect to the daily settlement of the positions and the payment of margin before the commencement of trading before the next date. It further provided that if the petitioner defaulted in paying the daily margin and market to market amount, if any, the respondent shall be entitled to liquidate/close all or any of the respondent's position. The parties were also governed by guidelines and circulars of Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `MCX') and also of the Forward Markets Commission (FMC). The respondent had asserted that even though she had entered into a Member Client Agreement with the appellant, she did not carry out any transaction in the said account. In September, 2011 she came to know that a large number of transaction in commodity market has been carried out in her account causing her a huge financial loss.

3. According to the respondent Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd. was holding respondent's stock and securities of the value of Rs.40 lakhs which they refused to release and in order to save her security, she paid an amount of Rs.18.40 lakhs vide cheque in favour of the appellant so that her shares and securities could be transferred to a new Demat Account opened by her with State Bank of India. Her claim was that she never transacted any business and was entitled to seek refund of Rs.18,20,982.75 paid by her to the appellant aside from Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and harassment. The matter was referred to the panel of Arbitrator

4. According to the appellant, the respondent since the opening of the account, has been regularly trading in the stock market without any demur. Various trades were executed in the trading account of the respondent from MCX from time to time and respondent was receiving the contract notes and SMS alerts on the respective Email ID and phone number. The appellant was also sending monthly Sauda Summary to the respondent through post.

5. Ld. Arbitrator vide impugned order dated May, 2013 dismissed the claim of the respondent.

6. The respondent then challenged the impugned Award under