The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for arbitral tribunals to adhere to the principles of natural justice and the substantive law of India, including providing parties with an opportunity to comment on crucial evidence and documents.

JUDGMENT :

(Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the impugned Award dated 23.04.2012 which confirms the Award dt. 24.11.2011 with exemplary costs.)

1. Captioned 'Original Petition' ('OP' for the sake of brevity) is an application under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)' and this Act shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience.

2. In captioned OP, sole petitioner is a constituent and contesting first respondent is a trading member qua 'National Stock Exchange of India Limited Byelaws' (hereinafter 'NSE Byelaws' for the sake of brevity). Chapter XI of NSE byelaws is captioned 'ARBITRATION' and this chapter serves as arbitration agreement (between petitioner and contesting first respondent) i.e., arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act.

3. In the web-hearing on a video-conferencing platform today, learned counsel Mr.Krishna Srinivas of M/s. S Ramasubramaniam and Associates (Law Firm) on behalf of sole petitioner and Mr.T.K.Baskar, learned counsel on record for the contesting first respondent were before this Court. Both learned counsel agreed for captioned OP being taken up for final disposal on a web-hearing and the matter was heard out. From the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and the case file placed before this Court, it comes to light that the three noblemen, who constituted the 'Appellate Arbitral Tribunal' (hereinafter 'AAT' for the sake of brevity), which made the 'award dated 23.04.2012' (hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity) need not be before this Court in the array of parties in the captioned OP (to be noted, three noblemen, who constituted AAT, have been arrayed as Respondents 2 to 4 in captioned OP). Therefore, following the procedure adopted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zonal General Manager, Ircon International Ltd. Vs. Vinay Heavy Equipments reported in (2015) 13 SCC 680 judgment, Respondents 2 to 4 stand deleted from the array of parties in the captioned OP in and by this order. Owing to this, the contesting first respondent now becomes the lone respondent and shall, therefore, hereinafter after be referred to as 'Respondent' in this order.

4. Chapter XI of NSE Bye-Laws, which serves as arbitration agreement between the petitioner and respondent provides for a three tiered arbitration mechanism vide which a dispute is first placed before an Investor Grievance Redressal Committee, if it is not settled before the Committee, it is carried to an 'Arbitral Tribunal' ('AT' for the sake of brevity) and thereafter, it can be carried to an 'Appellate Arbitral Tribunal' ('AAT' for the sake of brevity). In instant case, the disputes between the parties in captioned OP have travelled through these three tiers culminating in the impugned award, made by AAT.

5. Legal landscape of an application under Section 34 makes it clear that it is not an appeal. It is not a revision either. It is not even a full-fledged judicial review. It is a mere challenge to an arbitral award within the limited perimeter of legal landscape of Section 34 which provides for challenge to an arbitral award within the 8 slots adumbrated in sub-sections (2) and 2A of Section 34 and the facets of these slots as explained by Courts in various case laws. Owing to the aforementioned limited scope of captioned OP, short facts shorn of elaboration or in other words, factual matrix in a nutshell containing essential facts that are imperative for appreciating this order will suffice. Short facts are that there was a Stock Broker - Client Agreement between the parties; that the respondent is engaged in the business of broking, share trading inter-alia in equity and derivative segments; that the petitioner, pursuant to the Stock Br