Calcutta High Court Decides on the Merit under which Section 34 Appeals are Allowed

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

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. 

Court’s Decision 

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, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -