The present case is an appeal of the Arbitral award given by the tribunal. The Calcutta High Court states that the arbitrator is the final authority. Award appealed under section 34 is only applicable if material evidence were not considered.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed a claim before a sole arbitrator under the rules and regulations of the National Stock Exchange. The award given by sole-arbitrator rejected the claim of the petitioners. Petitioner appealed the award in the tribunal. The tribunal upheld the award given by the sole arbitrator. Hence, the present appeal before the High Court. The petitioner appealed before the court because material evidence is not considered.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The counsel states that the petitioner gave the Demat Account to the respondents’ company. This was in December 2009. The transfer is to ensure that the respondent company carries out the transaction. The petitioner realized that the agreement for transactions is not original. The agreements stand fabricated. Noting this, the petitioner requested the company. The request to the company is to sell her shares and pay the balance amount. The respondent paid 4, 19,000/- but a remaining 8, 26,000/- stands unpaid. Hence, the petitioner asked for the arbitration proceedings. The counsel further states they found the Demat account form tampered. It is not in consistency with the petitioner creating on an email id for the same.
Contentions of the Respondents
The counsel of the respondent stated the following, that the decisions made about the petitioner’s account are after the petitioner’s consent. There is due diligence conducted when the petitioner raised the claim. The due diligence report states there is no amount due to the petitioner, as the SMS facilities relay the information about the account.
The court analyzed the reasoning given by the sole arbitrator. It is said, that the decisions made about the petitioner’s account are after the petitioner’s consent. Hence, it’s reasonable to conclude that she has knowledge. Further, there is no proof on behalf of the petitioner about the claims. Due to reasons mentioned the sole arbitrator did not award the compensation. The petitioner appealed to the tribunal. The tribunal agreed with the merits stated by the sole arbitrator. Hence, upheld the award given by the sole arbitrator.
With the evidence provided to the court, the Court highlighted, the inconsistency with the email-id, as it is not accepted. This is because the petitioner received information about transactions. The information is through the phone SMS facility. With the given reasons the court upholds the decision given by the tribunal.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.