$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 24.11.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 18.12.2025

+ FAO (COMM) 204/2024

M/S TRUSTLINE SECURITIES LIMITED .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Hemant

Manjani, Advocate.

versus

HANISH SINGLA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Alok Sinha, Mr. Aakash

Saini and Ms. Deepansha Saini, Advocates with Mr. Pinkush Singla, son of Respondent in

Person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J.

1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, The Act impugning the Judgment dated 06.06.2024, Impugned Judgement in the O.M.P. (Comm) No. 106/2019 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, New Delhi District,

Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, Learned District Judge

2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned District Judge allowed the Respondent’s petition filed under Section 34 of the Act. As a result, the Appellate Arbitral Award dated 08.02.2019, passed by the Appellate Arbitral Panel of the National Stock Exchange, NSE, was set aside, and the original Arbitration Award dated 25.09.2018 stood restored.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The Appellant herein is in business of trading in stock market and is a Trading Member of NSE and was registered with Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI

4. The Respondent herein opened a trading account with the Appellant on 14.12.2007, bearing client code UCC–43H8, after completion of the requisite KYC formalities. It is stated that various trades were thereafter executed by the Appellant in the Respondent’s account between December 2007 and June 2008.

5. It is the case of the Appellant that for the trades carried out on behalf of the Respondent, trade confirmations, Electronic Contract Notes, ECNs, SMS alerts, and financial statements were regularly transmitted to the Respondent. With regard to this, the Appellant would further contend that, to honour the trades, the Respondent issued certain cheques, some of which were dishonoured. The Respondent, however, disputes authorisation of any such trades and asserts that the Appellant carried out trading unilaterally, without any instructions from the Respondent.

6. Alleging that the Respondent owed monies to the Appellant against authorised execution of trades, the Appellant herein originally filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 19,96,998/- as against the Respondent, being Suit No.19/2010 before the Saket Courts, New Delhi.

7. The said suit came to be decreed ex-parte in favour of the Appellant herein by virtue of a Decree dated 16.05.2011.

8. The Respondent filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in which, by Order dated 06.09.2013, the said ex-parte decree came to be set aside, and the suit was revived to its original position.

9. In the said suit, the Respondent herein filed an application under Section 8 of the Act, contending that the Agreement dated 14.12.2007, as executed between the parties, contained an arbitration clause as a result of which the dispute was required to be referred to arbitration.

10. By way of Order dated 20.01.2017, the dispute, based on the application under Section 8 of the Act, was referred to arbitration by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, DIAC. The said arbitration, thereafter, came to be referred to the Arbitration Centre of NSE by way of an Order dated 23.09.2017.

11. Pursuant to the said order, the learned Single Arbitrator by way of an award dated 25.09.2018, dismissed the claim of the Appellant herein and held that the trading that was carried out by the Appellant was not based on instructions of the Respondent, and negated the claims of the Appellant, on the basis that the trades alleged to have been executed by way of placing of orders via telephone calls on the landline phone were not supported by an