LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-72

NIRMAL BANG COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. Vs. S. GEETHA

Decided On December 17, 2014
Nirmal Bang Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
V/S
S. Geetha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner -Broker (original -Respondent) has challenged impugned award dated 27 February 2012 by which, the learned sole Arbitrator directed the Petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ - with interest @ 6% per annum. None appeared for the Respondent, though served. The matter is of the year 2012 and listed for final disposal. None appeared for the Respondent, even at the time of admission of this Petition. Therefore, I am inclined to dispose of the Petition as the Respondent failed to appear inspite of the service.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and after going through the documents placed on record, including the agreement and time to time issued and received contract notes, referring to the account transactions during the period from 14 March 2011 to 7 April 2011 and also for the fact that the Respondent even after these dates, carried out the transaction with the Petitioner on 13 June 2011 and 14 June 2011 and ultimately on 29 November 2011 filed the complaint, merely based upon the oral submission, in my view, goes to the root of the matter against the Respondent, specifically dealing with the transactions of this nature.

(3.) THE learned Arbitrator, in my view, therefore, wrongly put the burden upon the Petitioner, who have placed on record the documentary evidence to support the conduct, as well as, the compliances of the contract conditions, as required, for such transactions. The written communications and subsequent transactions of June, 2011, without raising any objection to the transactions of March and April of 2011, in my view, ought not to have been overlooked by the Arbitrator. Normally, there is no question of interference with the award so passed by the Arbitrator, but the award, if passed, by overlooking the contract conditions and documents placed on record and where there is no question of interpretation of any kind, such award in the present facts and circumstances, is unsustainable. The trading losses, because of nature of transactions, is part and parcel of such business, but at the same stroke, such claims based upon the oral submissions, without leading any contra evidence in its support is impermissible -it is contrary to the law. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned award.