9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lations of the Bombay Stock Exchange. Respondent no. 2 is wife of the appellant and was a separate constituent of respondent no. 1. 3. Sometime in the year 1999, the appellant had executed an individual Client Registration Application form as per the format given by the respondent no. 1 to carry on transactions on the Bombay Stock Exchange for the purchase and sale of various shares. Respondent no. 1 did not execute a client broker agreement with the appellant but had executed an individual client registration application form dated 1st August, 1999. 4. It was the case of the appellant that at the end of the settlement period A-42 on 31st January, 2001 there was an admitted credit balance of Rs. 7,40,020/- due and payable by the respondent no. 1 to the appellant. On 16th February, 2001, the appellant paid a further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the respondent no. 1 thus taking the credit balance is the sum of Rs. 9,40,020/-. It is the case of the appellant that no further transactions were carried out by the appellant in respect of the said account with respondent no. 1. At the end of the period February, 2001 when the appellant decided not to carry out any further transactions with resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of respondent no. 2. Appellant and respondent no. 2 also filed a separate sur-rejoinder. On 6th November, 2002 the respondent no. 1 filed an Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of Deepika Chokshi, one of the Director of the respondent no. 1 and of another witness. The respondent no. 1 also filed written submission before the Arbitral Tribunal. The said witness examined by the respondent no. 1 was cross-examined by the appellant's counsel. The Arbitral Tribunal made an Award on 26th February, 2004 directing the appellant and the respondent no. 2 to pay jointly and severally to the respondent no. 1 a sum of Rs. 11848069/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1st May, 2001 till the date of payment. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the counter-claim filed by the appellant. 8. Being aggrieved by the said Arbitral Award, the appellant as well as respondent no. 2 filed two separate Arbitration Petitions bearing No. 309 of 2004 and 308 of 2004 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before this Court. By an order dated 23rd August, 2005, a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed both the Arbitration Petitions with costs as incurred by the respondent no. 1. Being agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the credit of clients account. It is further provided that it shall also be compulsory for all Members brokers/sub-brokers to receive or to make all payment from or to the client strictly by way of account payee crossed cheques or demand drafts or direct credit into the bank account through NEFT or any other modes as so permitted by the Reserve Bank of India. Member brokers shall accept cheques drawn only by clients and issue cheques only in favour of the clients. However, in exceptional circumstances Member broker may receive payment in cash, to the extent that there is no violation of the Income Tax requirement for the time being in force. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent no. 1 had accordingly opened two separate accounts of the appellant and the respondent no. 2 respectively. All the transactions were carried out by the appellant-respondent no. 2 separately and were entered in those two separate accounts of the appellant and the respondent no. 2 respectively. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1-broker could not have held the appellant liable for the transactions, if any, carried out by the respondent no. 2 with the respondent no. 1 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering past experience and considering joint and several liability and considering their heavenly bestowed relationship, the Arbitral Tribunal upheld that such a transfer as made by the respondent no. 1 Member was in order. He submits that the said findings of Arbitral Tribunal is ex-facie, perverse and contrary to the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai and also the SEBI requirements. The Arbitral Tribunal could not have passed an Award against the petitioner on the basis of bestowed relationship between husband and wife. No finding of joint and several liability could be rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal passed on the alleged oral agreement between the appellant and the respondent no. 1. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the part of the Award at page 54 of the paper book referring to the written submissions made by the appellant contending that the claim filed by the respondent no. 1 was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action as the respondent no. 1 had entered into separate client broker agreement with respect of the respective separate transactions and therefore, the claim as filed by the respondent no. 1 agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to be executed in writing. The respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 had invoked the Arbitration Agreement between the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and not between the respondent no. 1 and the appellant. The Arbitral Tribunal had thus no jurisdiction to entertain any claim in so far as appellant is concerned. He submits that even if the appellant was an agent of the disclosed principal, the appellant cannot be held liable. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to few observations made by the learned single judge in the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2005. He submits that the learned single Judge has erroneously held that it was an implied term in the written contract executed between the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 1 and it was agreed to between the parties orally that if there was any debit balance in the account of the wife, both, the husband and wife would be jointly and severally liable. 21. The arbitration clause in the agreement with the wife was admittedly invoked. The learned single Judge erroneously held that there was arbitration clause between the husband and the broker also and thus there was no jurisdictional erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mh.L.j. 34 and in particular paragraphs 2 to 5 and would submit that the dispute between the parties i.e. a member and the constituent arising out of the transactions having taken place on the floor of the stock exchange only and the transactions permitted under the Bye-laws of the exchange only could be referred to arbitration and not otherwise. There were no such transactions on the floor of exchange between the appellant and respondent no. 1 which were the subject matter of the said arbitration proceeding filed by the respondent no. 1 against the appellant. 26. Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1, on the other hand, submits that the arbitration proceedings filed by the respondent no. 1 were under Bye-laws 248 (a) of the Mumbai Stock Exchange and was a statutory arbitration. No notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act was required to be issued prior to the date of the filing statement of claim by respondent no. 1 under the Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange Mumbai. The respondent no. 1 had filed a requisite Form i.e. Form 'AA' with the Stock Exchange with a request to refer the dispute to Arbitration. It is submitted by the learned sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of his aforesaid submissions. 1) Union of India Vs. Pam Development Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 11 SCC 366 2) Gas Authority of India Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. Vs. Keti Construction (I) Ltd. And Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 38 3) Aditasai Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Louis Drayfus Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 2015 SCC Online Bom 3410 4) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Comes Services SA. 2003 SCC Online Bom 287 5) P.R. Shah Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.H.H. Securities Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. (2012) 1 SCC 594 6) Banwari Lal Kotiya Vs. P.C. Aggarwal (1985) 3 SCC 255 7) Bombay Stock Exchange Vs. Jaya L. Shah & Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 160 30. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange Mumbai have statutory force and have been rightly applied by the Arbitral Tribunal also against the appellant. He submits that even in the said application form filed by the respondent no. 1 before the Stock Exchange Mumbai, a reference to Bye-laws under 248 (a) was made. The said Form AA was filed by the respondent no. 1 against the respondent no. 2 as well as appellant. He relied upon paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim filed by his cli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant, in his rejoinder argument submits that there was no contract of surety pleaded by the respondent no. 1 before the Arbitral Tribunal. There was no contractual agreement binding between the appellant and respondent no. 1 in respect of the claims made by the respondent no. 1 against the appellant. The respondent no. 1 did not point out any provisions of law holding husband as surety of his wife automatically and becomes axiomatically, jointly and severally liable for the debts, if any, of the wife to any third party. 35. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly placed reliance on Bye-law 248(a) of the Bye-laws framed by the Stock Exchange Mumbai and would submit that the dispute under the said Bye-laws can be referred to arbitration only if all the dealings, transactions and contracts which are made subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations having taken place on the floor of exchange and not otherwise. It is submitted that no claim arising out of the alleged guarantee or surety of the appellant on behalf of his wife to the respondent no. 1 can be made subject to Bye-laws and Rules and Regulations of Stock Exchange Mumbai. He strongly placed reliance on Bye-law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have been maintained against the appellant. He submitted that it was a statutory arbitration wherein only specified disputes permissible under Regulation 248(a) between the specified parties mentioned therein only and that also arising out of the "bargains", "dealings", "contract" and "transactions" having taken place on the floor of the exchange could be referred to arbitration and nothing beyond that. Even by consent of the parties, the dispute with a third party in respect of the private transaction could not be referred as disputes to arbitration nor such disputes could be adjudicated upon by the Arbitral Tribunal against such third party even on a consent or such third party not having raised any issue of jurisdiction. 39. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even if the appellant had not even specifically raised the issue of jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act as sought to be canvassed by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1, this being a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction, the appellant is not precluded from raising such issue of jurisdiction for the first time in the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act or acros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Popular Builders (supra) on the ground that the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment was not a case of statutory / institutional arbitration. The arbitration clause in this case has been set out on the bye-laws of the Stock Exchange. There were no arbitrable dispute to be referred to be arbitration in respect of the final bill in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appellant was carrying on the dealings/transactions from the trading account of the respondent no. 2. 43. The learned senior counsel distinguished the judgment of this Court in case of Atul R. Shah (supra) on the ground that in that matter the Arbitral Tribunal was not constituted in conformity with Section 10 of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitral Tribunal did not afford reasonable opportunities to the appellant to defend the claims made by the respondents. However, in this case the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted in conformity with not only Bye-laws of the Exchange, but also in accordance with Section 10 of the Arbitration Act. The appellant has not raised this ground before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal had given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal are:- "(a) Whether arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain claims made by the respondent No. 1 against the appellant? (b) Whether the appellant could be impleaded as a party respondent in the arbitral proceedings in respect of the dispute between the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 filed under the statutory Bye-laws on the ground that the liability of the appellant and the respondent no. 2 were joint and several though Arbitration Agreement between the respondent nos. 1 and 2 only was invoked by the respondent no. 1? (c) Whether Arbitral Tribunal can be conferred with jurisdiction by consent of parties in respect of the private transaction between them and not having taken place on the floor of the Bombay Stock Exchange under bye-law 248(a) of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai? (d) Whether under Bye-law 248(a) of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai providing for adjudication of the disputes arising only between the parties prescribed therein in relation to such dealings, transactions, contracts only could be invoked against a third party allegedly based on alleged guarantee or otherwise? (e) Whether the award against a third party in respect of a private transaction no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s any other liabilities. In paragraph no. 11 of the statement of claim it was alleged that the appellant and the respondent no. 2 were the constituents of the respondent no. 1. The differences and the dispute had arisen between them which were resolved through the arbitration of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The appellant and the respondent no. 2 resisted the said statement of case filed by respondent no. 1 on various grounds. 50. In the written statement and the counter claim of the appellant it was contended that the claim filed by the respondent no. 1 against the appellant was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. Each individual is a separate legal entity in the eyes of law. The respondent no. 1 had entered into separate Client Broker Agreement with respect of their separate transactions and therefore, the claim as filed by the respondent no. 1 was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It was also contended by the appellant that the respondent no. 1 had acted in utter disregard and in violation of the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai and also those of SEBI which specifically inter-alia deal with the rights and liabilities of the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that normally and historically the share transactions are done in a family by one person on behalf of the family members and more particularly, husband and wife is a formal unit. Interaction with the brokers' office was done by only one person. This was the position despite the fact that there would be separate client code, separate contract notes, bills and separate bank accounts. It was necessary to have these things separately, considering the documentation necessary for the purpose of tax laws. Broker member may not have seen other family members except their photographs, now on compulsory Broker Client Claim Form. 54. The Arbitral Tribunal accordingly held that the Tribunal upholds the existence of such oral agreement or understanding. It is held that the appellant was mostly coming to the office of the respondent no. 1-broker and had also given instructions sometimes when the respondent no. 2 was out of town and merely under the instructions of respondent no. 2. The Arbitral Tribunal held that the counter claim filed by the appellant was a counter blast and is not sustainable after being adjusted to the account that of respondent no. 2 and accordingly, dismissed the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requirements for the time being in force. 58. There was no express or oral understanding given by the appellant that any amount lying to the credit of his account shall be adjusted against the account of the respondent no. 2. The question of adjustment of the credit balance lying in the account of the appellant by the respondent no. 1 with the debit balance of respondent no. 2 did not arise. Though the Arbitral Tribunal took cognizance of this Byelaws requiring express authority of a client for adjustment of the credit and debit balance as the case may be, the Arbitral Tribunal approved the illegal transfer of the credit balance of the appellant in the account of the respondent no. 2 without any express authority or otherwise in violation of Bye-law 247A and also the SEBI guidelines. The adjustment of the credit balance with the debit balance could be permitted only by and under the express authority in respect of the same client and not two separate clients. The Arbitral Award ought to have been set aside by the learned Single Judge on the ground of such perversity or patent illegality. 59. Under the said Byelaws the respondent no. 1-broker had maintained separate account of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber shares brokerage in relation to such dealings, transactions and contracts shall be referred to and decided by arbitration as provided in the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange." 62. A perusal of said Bye-law 248(a) clearly indicates that the claims, difference and dispute only between the parties referred in the said Bye-laws arising out of a relation to a dealings, transactions and contracts which are made subject to Rules, Bye-laws, Regulations of the Exchange or with anything reference to anything incidental thereto or in pursuance thereof relating to their construction, fulfillment or validity or in relation thereto shall be referred to or decided by arbitration as provided in the Rules, Bye-laws and the Regulation of the Exchange. Though there was a similar arbitration clause applicable in respect of such dispute between the appellant and the respondent no. 1 in respect of all claims, differences, disputes between them as member and non-member was not invoked by respondent no. 1 when the statement of claim was filed by the respondent no. 1 jointly against the appellant and the respondent no. 2. 63. The Arbitration clause under the said Bye-law 248(a) could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance Limited (Supra) has dealt with the Special Leave Petition converted into Civil Appeal filed by a third party (not a party to the Arbitration Agreement) impugning the order passed by the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Insofar as such third party who was impleaded in an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act by the respondent No. 1 was concerned, there was a transaction between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under an agreement entered into between those two parties. There was a separate loan agreement between the appellant and the respondent No. 1. 66. The Andhra Pradesh High Court accepted the contention raised by the respondent Nos. 1 that the appellant was rightly impleaded as a party respondent in the said application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment adverted to earlier judgment in case of S.N. Prasad v/s. Monnet Finance Limited and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 320. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment in case of S.N. Prasad (supra) had held that there could be reference to arbitration only if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. If there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not a party to the loan agreement. There was no arbitration agreement between the developer and the appellant. The first respondent had invoked the arbitration agreement contained in the construction agreement between the first respondent and the developer and not the arbitration agreement contained in the loan agreement between the appellant and the first respondent. 69. It is held that the existence of an arbitration agreement in a contract between the appellant and the respondent will not enable the first respondent to implead the appellant as a party to an arbitration in regard to his disputes with the developer. It is held that if there had been an arbitration clause in the tripartite agreement amongst the first respondent, developer and the appellant and if the first respondent had made claims or raised dispute against petitioner, developer and the appellant with reference to such tripartite agreement, the position would have been different. But that is not so. The petition under Section 11 of the Act against the appellant was therefore misconceived as the appellant was not a party to the construction agreement entered into between the respondent no. 1 and the developer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Arbitration Act. A party even by consent cannot confer jurisdiction on the learned arbitrator in case of action in rem which jurisdiction the learned arbitrator did not have. This Court also adverted to the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v/s. Jasjit Singh (1993) 2 SCC 507, and followed the principles laid down therein. This Court accordingly permitted the petitioner to raise such issue of jurisdiction for the first time in the petition filed under Section 34 on such ground. We are in agreement with the principles laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court delivered by one of us (R.D. Dhanuka, J.). In this case also, the arbitral tribunal lacked inherent jurisdiction to deal with the claim against the appellant arising out of private transaction not governed by bye-law 248(a). 73. This Court in case of Smt. Prema Amarlal Gera v/s. The Memon Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. (2017) 2 Bom CR 800, had considered the arbitration petition filed by a third party (not a party to the arbitration agreement) but was allowed to intervene on his application in the arbitral proceedings by the learned arbitrator. The learned arbitrator made an award ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant by the arbitral tribunal in those proceedings. In our view, in view of there being a statutory arbitration even in this case as prescribed under Bye-laws 248(a) of the Bye-laws framed by the Stock Exchange, Mumbai and in view of the fact that the appellant did not fall under any of the persons described under the said clause in the capacity of a guarantor or as third party, the entire arbitration in so far as Appellant is concerned was totally without jurisdiction. Even if the appellant had not raised any objection in so many clear terms prescribed under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act in such statutory arbitration prescribing the parties whose disputes can be referred to arbitration in relation to dealings, transactions and contract made subject to Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange, the arbitral tribunal having lack of inherent jurisdiction, the appellants are not precluded from raising such objection even after declaration of award. In our view, even if the appellant had entered into any such oral understanding with the respondent no. 1 to clear the dues of the respondent no. 2, respondent no. 1, such alleged understanding given by the appellant would not fall w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction if constitution of the arbitral tribunal was in contravention of Section 10 of the Arbitration Act. Courts cannot confer jurisdiction on themselves, by consent of the parties and clothe themselves with jurisdiction though in a given case, no such jurisdiction vest in such Court. The principles laid down by this Court in the said judgment applies to the facts of this case. 80. In our view, Mr. Jagtiani, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 however is right in his submission that under the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations framed by the Stock Exchange, Mumbai, the party who wants to make a claim against any party falling under Bye-law 248(a) was not required to give any notice invoking arbitration agreement under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act and is required to file requisite form alongwith statement of claim before the Stock Exchange, Mumbai. 81. In case of Union of India v/s. Popular Builders (supra) relied upon by Mr. Jagtiani, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the fact that the appellant had not only filed a statement of defence but also raised a counter claim against the respondent. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant under the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations framed by the Bombay Stock Exchange. It was alleged by the respondent no. 1 that the appellant and the second respondent were sister concern with a common director who had approached the first respondent to get the carry forward sauda in respect of certain shares. Those shares were transferred with the first respondent on behalf of the second respondent which were outstanding with the appellant. In that case, all the bills were drawn on the second respondent according to the first respondent as required by the appellant. 84. The arbitral tribunal had held that the transactions had taken place as alleged by the first respondent and therefore the appellant and the second respondent were liable for the amounts claimed. The arbitral tribunal made an award allowing the claim against the appellant and the second respondent. The second respondent did not contest the award. The appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The dispute between the parties was that Bye-law 248(a) did not apply to a dispute between two members. The Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent of the parties to actual reference is already there in the agreement; in addition there is a statutory reference and thus the reference being consensual the resultant award would be valid and binding on the parties to the transactions. There is no dispute about the proposition of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment that the reference under Bye-law 248(a) was a statutory reference and thus assent of all the parties to the actual reference already was in the agreement. 88. In our view, two separate transactions between two different parties could not have been clubbed together in the same reference, though all such parties were party to such statutory arbitration. The respondent no. 1 admittedly not having invoked the arbitration agreement against the appellant under bye-law 248(a), the appellant could not have been impleaded as a party respondent to the statement of claim filed by the respondent no. 1 and that too in respect of a private transaction. The entire award insofar as the appellant is concerned, was thus without jurisdiction. 89. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bombay Stock Exchange v/s. Jaya I. Shah and Anr. (supra) has held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have invoked the separate arbitration agreement prescribed under Bye-laws 248 (a) of Bye-laws framed by the Stock Exchange, Mumbai and could not have filed a counter-claim. The Arbitral Tribunal has dismissed the counter-claim filed by the appellant on the ground that the said counter-claim was filed as counter blast and not sustainable after being adjusted to the account of the respondent no. 2. 92. There is no merit in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 that various findings of the facts rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal in this case were rightly not interfered with by the learned Single Judge. In our view, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the award on the ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the findings rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal being totally perverse and contrary to bye-laws, rules and regulations of Stock Exchange, Mumbai, award was liable to be set aside on that ground itself. 93. In so far as the reliance placed on the statement of claim, by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 in support of the submission that the appellant as well as the respondent no. 2 were impleaded as C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Be that as it may, any dispute arising out of such alleged express authority or otherwise, could not be the subject matter of the said statutory arbitration prescribed under Bye-law 248(a). The impugned award clearly shows perversity on this ground also. 97. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that the appellant was not sued on the basis of transactions on the floor of the exchange between the appellant and the respondent no. 1 but on the basis of an oral understanding/oral guarantee on behalf of the appellant given to the respondent no. 1 for clearing the dues of the respondent no. 2, if any, payable to the respondent no. 1. Appellant could not be impleaded based on an oral arbitration agreement in alleged oral understanding between the appellant and the respondent no. 1. Mr. Jagtiani, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 fairly accepted that the arguments advanced by him in this appeal are contrary to the findings recorded and the observations made by the learned Single Judge. In our view, since the entire award was without jurisdiction and shows perversity, learned Single Judge ought to have interfered with the impugned award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
