- (1.) Present objections have been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned ex parte Award dated 27.7.2009 passed by a panel of Arbitrators.
(2.) The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of the present objections are that in December, 2007, the petitioner applied for registration as a client with the respondent for sale and purchase of shares/securities at various stock exchanges. A Stock Broker-client Agreement dated 24.12.2007 was entered into between the parties with respect to the National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. The parties also entered into a Supplement Member Client Agreement on 24.12.2007. On the same date, other related documents were also executed between the parties. As per the understanding between the parties, the respondent was to purchase securities/shares as per the instructions of the petitioner and not otherwise. Various obligations were caste upon the parties in terms of the agreement executed between the parties. As per the petition, the petitioner started trading through the respondent for barely about one month and then decided to stop the transactions with the respondent. The trading started on 27.12.2007 and the last transaction was carried out on 17.1.2008. As per the agreement all disputes and differences were to be decided through Arbitration of National Stock Exchange of India Limited and as per its bye-laws. As per the Award, the respondent has been awarded a sum of Rs.1,69,99,283.57 along with interest @12%, per annum.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had engaged the services of a lawyer who had appeared before the learned Arbitrators and sought time to file reply, which is borne out from the record of the Arbitrators. Thereafter the counsel appearing in the matter did not inform the petitioner about his non-appearance, which led to the passing of the ex parte Award, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Arbitrators acted in undue haste as no preemptory notice was served upon the petitioner that in case the petitioner did not appear he would be proceeded ex parte in the matter.;