9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner impugns the circular No. PR No. 03/2011 dated 06.01.2011 issued by the respondent (SEBI). 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned circular (PR No. 03/2011) modifies the period of limitation for invoking the arbitration from six months to three years. 3. According to the petitioner, the circulars issued by SEBI are detrimental to the interest of the investors and have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period of three years - but beyond the period of six months - from the date the amounts claimed became due. The Arbitrator made an award on 15.06.2011 awarding a sum of Rs. 4,30,451/- in favour of IIL. It was also directed that interest @12% on the said amount would be payable in case of delay in payment of the awarded amount. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve effect. The petitioner's contention was rejected by the Additional District Judge in the following words:- "5. Given the facts I am unable to concur with the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the NSE's increasing the limitation to three years would not applicable to the present case. The arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the amendments would not be applicable retrospectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 10 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 to protect the interest of investors. 8. A plain reading of the impugned circular also indicates that the increase in the period of limitation is available to both parties and is not limited only to claims made by brokers against their clients. Thus, no mala fides can be attributed to SEBI in framing the impugned circular. In Biba Sethi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
