2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
COMAP No.209 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
WAY2WEALTH BROKERS PVT LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT RUKMINI TOWERS,
3RD AND 4TH FLOOR,
NO.3/1, PLATFORM ROAD,
SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560020
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR
SHRIDHAR SRIKANTIAH GARGESHWARI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K C SUDARSHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . MRS.PONNA SHANKAR
W/O LATE SRI C S SHANKAR,
R/AT BLOCK,
E 503, WHITE HOUSE APARTMENTS,
6TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS,
R T NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560032
2 . MR R MOHAN
MAJOR,
C/O NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA,
OFFICE NO.217,
2ND FLOOR, DBS HOUSE,
2
NO.26, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU-560052
3 . MR V SEKAR
MAJOR,
C/O NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA,
OFFICE NO.217,
2ND FLOOR, DBS HOUSE,
NO.26, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU-560052
4 . MR A V MURALIDHARAN
MAJOR,
C/O NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA,
OFFICE NO.217,
2ND FLOOR, DBS HOUSE,
NO.26, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU-560052
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S R KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRADEEP S SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 & R4 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE
ORDER DATED 16.11.21)
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 R/W SECTION
13(1) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT R/W CHAPTER VI OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RULES 1959, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE LXXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-89), BENGALURU IN COM.A.S.NO.263/2018 AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 08.07.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, POONACHA J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
The Present appeal is filed challenging the judgment
dated 19.04.2021 passed in Com.A.S.No.263/2018 by the
LXXXVIII
Additional
City
Civil
and
Sessions
Judge
(Exclusive Commercial Court), Bengaluru City, (hereinafter
referred to as the 8Commercial Court9 for short).
2.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
It is the case of the Appellant that it is a Brokerage
Firm registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of
India (SEBI). The first Respondent and her husband
jointly
held
a
Demat
Account
with
the
Appellant.
Subsequent to the death of her husband, the first
Respondent had opened an individual account and the
shares held in the joint account of the first Respondent and
her husband were transferred to the said individual
account.
3.
In 2017, the first Respondent, contending that
the Appellant had illegally, without authorization or
consent sold the shares and the proceeds of which were
4
also not paid to her, filed a complaint which was referred
to the National Stock Exchange (NSE). The Appellant
denied the allegations made by the first Respondent.
4.
After receipt of the complaint, the NSE referred
the same to the Investors9 Grievance Redressal Panel
(IGRP) in accordance with its Rules. Accordingly, the first
Respondent and the Appellant appeared before the IGRP
that
was
constituted
and
participated
in
the
said
proceedings. The IGRP, vide its final order dated
24.11.2017 held that the Appellant had sold the shares of
the first Respondent without authority and the Appellant
was required to reinstate 3257 shares of HDFC Ltc., 1960
shares of HDFC Bank and 300 shares of Deepak Fertilizer;
in the alternative it was ordered that the Appellant was
required to pay the first Respondent the value of the said
shares as on 31.10.2017 i.e., a sum of Rs.92,47,906.80
within seven days.
5
5.
The Appellant, being aggrieved by the said
order, dated 24.11.2017 passed by the IGRP, petitioned
the NSE and accordingly, the NSE referred the dispute to a
Panel of Arbitrators for determination of the dispute in
accordance with law, By-laws, Rules and Regulations of the
NSE. Accordingly, the parties entered appearance before
the Arbitral Tribunal and filed their respective pleadings.
The Arbitral Tribunal, after hearing the parties and
appreciating the entire factual matrix, has categorically,
inter alia, recorded following findings of fact:
i)
The
KYC
documents
were
fraudulently
obtained;
ii)
There has never been any <Pay-in= and <Pay-
out= made by the Appellant to Respondent No.1 as per
NSE norms;
iii)
The alleged contract notes produced by the
Appellant did not correspond with the holding statement of
the first Respondent;
6
iv)
The Phone number and e-mail address of the
first Respondent in the records of the Appellant was
changed to another number allegedly belonging to Mr.Arun
Kumar Mishra, who was admittedly an employee of the
Appellant; and
v)
The Appellant, also having taken various
defences and made counter allegations against the
Respondent No.1 as well as her children before the Arbitral
Tribunal, did not produce any material in support of the
same in substantiating the said defences/allegations.
6.
By recording the aforementioned findings of
fact, the Arbitral Tribunal, by its Award dated 04.05.2018
passed the following Award:
<The Applicant (Trading Member) is ordered
to return to the Respondent 3257 shares of HDFC
Ltd, 1960 shares of HDFC Bank and 300 Shares of
Deepak Fertilizer. In the alternative, the Applicant
is ordered to pay the equivalent value of these
shares as on 31.10.2017 amounting to Rs.92,47,
906.80 (Rs Ninety Two Lakh forty Seven Thousand
Nine hundred and Six and Eighty paise only) within
30 days of this Award.=
7
7.
Being
aggrieved
by
the
Award
dated
04.05.2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Appellant
petitioned the NSE to challenge the same and accordingly,
the NSE appointed the Appellate Panel of Arbitrators. Both
the parties appeared before the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal
and participated in the