9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain entries were erroneously made in his account with the stock broker, the respondent herein, and claimed reversal of those entries and payment in lieu thereof from the respondent. The petitioner claimed a total of Rs. 87.04 lakhs under two specified types of transactions, one of which was an unauthorised journal voucher entry (JE) of Rs. 5 lakhs transferring such amount to the account of a third party and the other was Rs. 82.04 lakhs claimed under unauthorised transactions of purchase and sale of shares carried out by the respondent without the authority of the petitioner. The petitioner also claim Rs. 69.01 lakhs towards loss of profit opportunity and interest on the entire amount claimed. 3. The debit entry of Rs. 5 lakhs unauthorise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad a credit of Rs. 1.57 Crores on 19th March, 2009. Soon thereafter in his account one JE for the transaction with the BSE and several JEs for transactions with the NSE came to be made therein on and after 26th March, 2009. 8. The petitioner objected to the transactions on 8th July, 2009. The claim was lodged on 10th February, 2010. The petitioner was stated to be required to make a claim within six months of the transaction or the date on which he claims to have given endorsement or order to buy or sell the securities or the date on which he claims to have given instructions or order to buy or sell the securities or the date on which he claims to have paid the money or given security which were earlier as per bye law 252(2) of the BSE. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties can be agitated within a period of 3 years and not the restricted period of 6 months as it was prevailing prior to the SEBI circulars. 12. Mr. Purohit would argue that after the learned Arbitrators concluded that the petitioner's claim was barred by limitation, the claim on merits should not have been considered and the learned Arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction in considering so. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sudesh w/o Sushilkumar Handa Vs. Abdul Ajiz s/o Umarbhai & Anr. 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 324 holding that an issue of limitation considered under Section 9A is a jurisdictional issue which could be tried before any other issue is tried. The issues before the learned Arbitrators ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st, 2009. The petitioner received information of the reversals on that day. The petitioner had called upon the respondent to "give" him all his payments on these entries. If all the entries had been reversed, the petitioner would not lodge any claim in arbitration. The respondent, in fact, reversed one JE and one other entry relating to delayed payment claimed from the petitioner in a single consolidated statement of account. 17. In a related arbitration of the NSE under the aforesaid consolidated account the learned Arbitrators have considered the reversal as a part acknowledgment of liability in writing made on 11th August, 2009 in the said account. The petitioner claims that the learned Arbitrators in this arbitration have failed to exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other entry for delayed payments were reversed on 11th August, 2009 upon the petitioner's objection to entries taken in his letter dated 8th July, 2009 showing a part acknowledgment of liability to that extent. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that since the entries of NSE as well as BSE were in the same consolidated statement of account, the acknowledgment of liability would enure for the benefit of the entries in both NSE and BSE for the commencement of the period of limitation. 21. Further on merits the JE of Rs. 5 lakhs left unreversed is claimed to be under a letter giving authority for group adjustments signed inter alia by the petitioner with one Prosperous Finvest and one Payal Pandya. The petitioner claims, and rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t notes are in electronic form showing the date as also the time of the order alongside the order number which was sent to the petitioner and shown to be received. This is the correct basis for considering those contracts. 23. The acknowledgments of the contract notes were considered by the learned Arbitrators. They have been produced by the respondents in this Court also. They are seen to be addressed to the petitioner and received on behalf of the petitioner on the very next date of the transactions for each of the contract notes sent by courier. The petitioner's contention that the acknowledgments are not of the petitioner or his representatives cannot be countenanced and is not substantiated by the petitioner. 24. Hence the reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
