Arcadia Shares And Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Harmanprit Singh Sidhu .

Manmohan Singh, J.:—

I.A. No. 4311/2014 (for condonation of delay of 55 days in re-filing the petition)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the Award dated 10 September, 2013 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. Brief facts are that the respondent filed a complaint with the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE) against the petitioner citing violation of various provisions of law regarding the trading account of the respondent being maintained by the petitioner. The petitioner filed its defence of claim. The sole Arbitrator by the Award dated 21January, 2013 had dismissed/rejected the entire claim of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before NSE who heard both the parties at length on 7May, 2013 and reserved the matter for judgment. In the meanwhile, the disputes between the parties were amicably settled through Compromise Deed dated 31August, 2013. The said compromise was communicated to the NSE through letter dated 6September, 2013. However, despite the settlement, the NSE passed the impugned Award dated 10September, 2013 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was partly allowed on the sole point of transfer of Rs. 6,86,671.85/- to Arcadia Commodities and Trading which is taken as unauthorised transfer to a third party. Hence, the petitioner was directed to pay the said amount to the respondent.

3. Along with the petition, the petitioner has filed the abovementioned application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 55 days in re-filing the petition. It is submitted in the application that the instant matter was assigned to the counsel in the beginning of October, 2013 wherein the counsel had prepared a rough draft based on the details available with him. It is further submitted that the counsel developed severe ulcerations in its esophagus and stomach for which he had to be rushed to the hospital on 8October, 2013. The counsel suffered from several relapses and had to undergo continued treatment both at the hospital as well as at home. The condition of the counsel was so severe that he was strictly placed on special liquid diet (later soft diet) till January, 2014. Thus, the delay was caused due to the severe medical conditions being suffered by the counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that even otherwise, the respondent has no case on merits, as the entire amount as per the Compromise Deed has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent. The said factum of settlement has not been considered by the Arbitral Tribunal.

5. The prayer of the application is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who submits that when the present objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed within the prescribed time, even then no vakalatnama was filed. In fact, the same was filed on 5March, 2014 along with the affidavit. Thus, the delay should not be condoned.

6. I have gone through the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act, the Award as well as the Compromise Deed referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This case requires consideration on merits, as the case of the petitioner is that despite of having paid the entire amount as per the Compromise Deed, the Arbitral Tribunal has ignored the same while rendering the impugned Award. Thus, there is a sufficient reason to hear the present objections, coupled with the fact that the sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay. The prayer made in the application is accordingly allowed. The delay in re-filing is condoned.

7. The application is disposed of.

O.M.P. No. 294/2014

8. Let the reply be filed by the respondent within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

9. Parties to file respective written synopsis of arguments with reference to the file as well as to the pagination in the arbitral record, within four weeks from today. They would also prepare the convenience file containing the compilation of documents as well as copies of judgments duly highlighted to be relied upon by them during the hearing for the purpose of reference of the Court.

10. List on 3May, 2016.

I.A. No. 4309/2014 (for stay)

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that till the next date of hearing, the operation of the impugned Award dated 10 September, 2013 shall remain stayed.