SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 791

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
 
ABB India Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Hariram Jaisingh And Ors. – Respondents
Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 32954 of 2024 With Interim Application (L) No. 37483 Of 2024 
Decided On : 09-06-2026 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nand Kishore i/b S L Partners, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rushin Kapadia, Rinku Valanju, Hemant Dharap & Hiral Shah i/b. R V Legal, Advocates.

An arbitral award resulting from summary proceedings that bypasses natural justice, fails to frame issues in complex matters of fraud, and neglects adjudication of limitation and third-party implications is perverse, patently illegal, and liable to be set aside.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Challenge to arbitral award - Principle of natural justice - Adjudication of complex disputes in summary manner - Award passed without framing issues or conducting hearings after completion of pleadings, despite complexity involving substantive claims of fraud and limitation - Conduct of proceedings held to be perverse, irrational, and patently illegal - Violates fundamental procedural fairness requirements - Award set aside. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 52)

(B) Arbitration - Arbitrability - Dispute involving allegations of fraud - Where a dispute involves serious allegations of fraud with in rem implications, including potential involvement of third parties, such matter cannot be resolved through summary adjudication - Necessity for thorough investigation and trial observed - Arbitral tribunal erred in brushing aside jurisdictional objections and failing to investigate role of various parties. (Paras 29, 33, 36)

(C) Limitation and Laches - Claim for transmission of shares - Delay of several decades in pursuing legal remedies - Whether a claim is barred by limitation and vitiated by laches constitutes a mixed question of fact and law - Failure to adjudicate this issue based on material on record renders the award unsustainable. (Paras 25, 27, 28)

Facts of the case:
A claimant sought the restoration of shares alleging that they were improperly transmitted to third parties decades earlier. The arbitral tribunal, operating under an accelerated online dispute resolution framework, conducted the proceedings in a summary manner. The tribunal failed to frame issues after the completion of pleadings, denied effective hearings to the parties, and did not permit evidence to be led on disputed facts regarding fraud and the conduct of the claimant. The tribunal ultimately directed the listed entity to restore the shares or pay compensation based on current market values.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the arbitral award was patently illegal and perverse, originating from a process that sacrificed judicial principles for adherence to a self-imposed, ill-defined timeline. The tribunal's refusal to frame issues or conduct hearings after pleadings were concluded, and its failure to properly investigate the nature of the fraud and the application of limitation, demonstrated a gross failure in the delivery of justice.

Issues: The main issues were whether the arbitral tribunal’s summary disposal of a complex dispute violated the principles of natural justice and whether the finding on the arbitrability of a fraud-related claim, without trial, was legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an arbitral award is liable to be set aside under Section 34 if the tribunal adopts an arbitrary, summary process that violates natural justice in complex cases, fails to address substantive issues like limitation and fraud, and ignores the necessity of a trial for disputed questions of fact involving third-party interests.

Result: Petition allowed; Impugned award quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT :

SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Context and Factual Background:

1. This is a Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), challenging an Arbitral Award dated August 6, 2024 (“Impugned Award”).

2. The Petitioner, ABB India Limited (“ABB”) has been directed in the Impugned Award, to reinstate shareholding of the Respondent, Sunil Hariram Jaisingh (“Jaisingh”) to the extent of 1,550 shares of ABB and 310 shares of Hitachi Energy India Ltd (“Hitachi”) (which had emerged as ABB Power Products & Systems Ltd. pursuant to demerger of an undertaking), within a period of 15 days. Failing such restoration, monetary compensation equivalent to the market value of such shares as of the date of uploading the Impugned Award is to be paid by ABB to Jaisingh.

3. The Impugned Award has been passed by a three-member Arbitral Tribunal appointed by an independent online arbitral institution that facilitates and administers online dispute resolution (“ODR”), empanelled with the BSE Limited (“BSE”) under the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (“SEBI”) ODR framework for disputes in the securities market.

4. Jaisingh was the Claimant in the arbitration while ABB was the first Respondent. The other parties in the arbitration proceedings were Respondent No. 2, Tata Consultancy Services (“TCS”) and KFIN Technologies Limited (“KFIN”), each of which was the Registrar and Transfer Agent (“RTA”) handling the share transfer registration activity for ABB, whose shares are listed on the BSE.

5. Admittedly, the proceedings have been conducted with no participation by TCS and with KFIN filing only a written defence, without otherwise participating in the proceedings. Moreover, the Statement of Defence by ABB (as indeed an additional affidavit from Jaisingh that crystallised the claim) was permitted to be filed, both documents were taken on record only after hearing in the matter was concluded, with the Learned Arbitral Tribunal not permitting any hearing thereafter. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal found it unnecessary to conduct a personal hearing after completion of pleadings, primarily citing deadline for completion of the arbitration under SEBI’s ODR Master Circular dated July 31, 2023 (updated as of December 28, 2023) (“Master Circular”).

6. Jaisingh’s late father one Mr. Hariram Hemraj Jaisingh held 175 shares in ABB when he passed away on November 17, 1988. According to the records, sometime in 1992 (the specific date is unclear) Jaisingh applied for transfer or transmission of these shares to his name. The Application is said to have been “made through” his Advocate one Mr. Amar Talreja. A registered Will dated February 27, 1981, the original Share Certificates and the Death Certificate are said to have been presented by Mr. Talreja to TCS, the then RTA of ABB. TCS replied by a letter dated March 13, 1992, addressed to Mr. Talreja, returning the Application along with the original Share Certificates and asking for the Probate of the Will in order to effect the transmission.

7. Mr. Talreja is said to have informed Jaisingh about the receipt of the letter dated March 13, 1992, requesting Jaisingh to comply with the requirements. After that, Jaisingh is purported to have been “occupied in his family matters, financial and professional responsibilities”. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal has recorded that “thereafter” Mr. Talreja informed Jaisingh that the original Share Certificates had been misplaced by Mr. Talreja in his office and he was not able to trace them. The date of such intimation is also unclear. Admittedly, Jaisingh has brought nothing to bear on his reaction to the news about return of the Share Certificates by TCS or on his reaction to Mr. Talreja’s intimation that the Share Certificates were misplaced.

8. Miraculously, “while vacating his office in 2021” Mr. Talreja is said to have found the original Share Certificates in his office and informed Jaisingh by a letter dated February 6, 2021, and also retur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top