The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the limitation period prescribed by Byelaw 3 of Chapter XI of the National Stock Exchange (NSE) Byelaws and the interpretation of the contract terms.

1. The first respondent before the learned Arbitrator has filed this Original Petition, challenging the award dated 06.03.2008.

.2. The first respondent herein was an account holder in HDFC Bank Ltd., Erode Branch and a Trading Member of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. The first respondent herein went in for a Member-Client agreement with the petitioner on 18th February 2006. The first respondent opened a demat account with the HDFC Bank. An irrevocable power of attorney was executed in favour of the HDFC Bank authorising the HDFC Bank to transfer funds from his account to the Demat account of the first respondent on the instructions received from the petitioner. In terms of the agreement thus entered into, the first respondent had been having regular trading in stock through the petitioner. It is not denied by the parties herein that the terms of the contract are such that the petitioner has to send regularly the contract notes to the customer like the first respondent as regards the transactions that are carried on by the petitioner for the first respondent, apart from the statement of accounts sent every quarter. At the instance of the first respondent, the petitioner herein began dealing in equities from May, 2006. So long as the first respondent had his trading in equities, there was absolutely no problem between the parties. However, when he was called upon to keep up the margin money, the first respondent took the stand that the petitioner was trading without any authorisation and that the loss suffered could not be fastened on him. In the circumstances, the first respondent herein entered into correspondence with the petitioner. Not satisfied of the stand taken by the petitioner herein, the first respondent made a complaint to the apex body for referring the disputes to arbitration.

3. Learned Arbitrator passed an award in favour of the first respondent herein, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,61,210/-towards the unauthorised sale of shares and trades done and debited to the first respondents bank account; directing the petitioner herein to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for unauthorised sale of shares and hardships caused to the first respondent, apart from a sum of Rs.20,000/-payable towards costs for arbitration proceedings and other expenses. Thus an award for a sum of Rs.5,81,210/-with interest at 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.4,61,210/- from 1st July 2006 to the date of the award and at 15% per annum on the total award amount of Rs.5,81,210/-from the date of the arbitral award to the date of Fixed Deposit Receipt to be made out by the petitioner for a period of not less than 91 days from the Clearing Bank was passed. The interest payable to the first respondent herein from the date of the Fixed Deposit Receipt till the date of payment was stated to be the interest accrued on the Fixed Deposit Receipt till the date of encashment. Thus the said award was passed as against the claim of the first respondent for a sum of Rs.84 lakhs. Admittedly, no Original Petition is filed against this by the first respondent.

4. In so granting the relief to the first respondent herein, learned Arbitrator considered the question of limitation, raised by the petitioner herein, placing reliance on Byelaw 3 of Chapter XI of the National Stock Exchange (NSE) Byelaws. On the merits of the case, learned Arbitrator pointed out that the petitioner took advantage of the fact that the first respondent was not conversant in English and trading in F & O operation and that the petitioner had traded without any specific instruction. Hence, on a perusal of the F&O operations carried out, it was evident that huge volumes of trade had taken place without sufficient funds to the account of the first respondent herein. It was further pointed out by the learned Arbitrator that the petitioner had not posted the first respondent with the necessary contract notes, thereby denying him an opportunity of kno