IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of affording parties the opportunity to present their views on vital documents and the consideration of all relevant evidence by the Arbitral Tribunal, as failure to do so can render the award vulnerable to being set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Prayer: Original Side Appeal (CAD) filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, to set aside the fair and decretal dated 01.10.2020 made in OP No. 681 of 2012.

1. This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is at the instance of the respondent in Arbitration OP No. 681 of 2012. The dispute essentially emanates out of trading in shares carried out by the appellant on behalf of the 1st respondent and the same was referred to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted by the National Stock Exchange of India Limited.

2. The claimant/1st respondent herein made a claim for a sum of Rs. 6,60,20,018/- with 24% interest from December 2009 till March 2011. The essence of the claim which is necessary for the disposal of this Appeal is as follows:

3. The appellant is a stock broker registered with the National Stock Exchange of India Limited and the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited. The respondent entered into a Member Constituent Agreement with the appellant on 15.03.2000, in and by which, they agreed to trade in listed shares and trade codes were also assigned. During the course of the transactions, the respondent found that the appellant had entered into several unauthorized transactions and raised a complaint regarding such unauthorized transactions on 25.08.2008. Upon being informed, the main office of the appellant in Kochi assured that a due enquiry will be conducted and no further unauthorized transaction will take place. Certain corrective measures were taken and the issue that arose in 2008 was said to have been closed soon thereafter.

4. However, according to the 1st respondent, the appellant continued to commit unauthorized transactions and provided the applicant with inaccurate and false statements of accounts. These were objected to by the 1st respondent and during September 2008 to February 2009, the 1st respondent has authorised purchase of 26,245 shares of M/s. TATA Motors Ltd. and in January 2009, the 1st respondent has authorised purchase of 4,25,000 shares of M/s. Electro Steel Castings Ltd.

5. According to the 1st respondent, those shares were purchased, but, however, during May 2009, the 1st respondent were requested the account to be kept in a freeze mode which was acceded to and subsequently on 13.07.2009, the 1st respondent has authorized purchase of 50,000 shares of M/s. Electro Steel Castings Ltd. and payment for that purchase was made on 15.07.2009. The suspension was removed on 27.07.2009 and the 1st respondent instructed the appellant to sell 5,05,000 shares to M/s. Electro Steel Castings Ltd.

6. However, the said transaction was not carried out, but subsequently the appellant claims that a lesser number of shares amounting to about 1,93,462 shares were sold on 30.11.2009 and the value was credited to the account of the 1st respondent. Contending that the action of the appellant in selling only 1,93,462 shares is illegal and that the 1st respondent is entitled to the value of the entire 5,05,000 shares. The 1st respondent made a claim for the difference in price and for damages which according to them was quantified as Rs. 6,60,20,018/-.

7. This claim was resisted by the appellant herein contending that the 1st respondent never had 5,05,000 shares in her account to enable them to sell the same on 27.07.2009. Therefore, the crux of the issue before the Arbitration Tribunal was, as to whether, the 1st respondent had 5,05,000 shares in M/s. Electro Steel Castings Ltd. on the crucial date. The claim regarding M/s. TATA Motors Ltd. was given up at the time of Arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal went into the evidence and concluded that the 1st respondent has not shown that she held 5,05,000 shares in M/s. Electro Steel Castings Ltd. on 27.07.2009.

8. The Arbitral Tribunal after the conclusion of the hearing, call for the statements from the Nati