D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner has alleged that the arbitrator appointed under the bye-laws framed pursuant to Section 9 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, had passed an ex parte award against her in the matter arising out of alleged dealings/transactions, which the petitioner had never entered into. It is further alleged that the petitioner had no notice of the arbitration and the arbitrator had misconducted himself in passing the said award ex parte. It is further contended that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to enter into arbitration since the alleged transaction did not fall within the ambit of bye-laws 247 (a) and 247 (b) of the bye-laws framed under the said Act.
(2.) I have heard Mr. R. K. Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Mahendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, at length.
(3.) Section 9 of the said Act provides for framing of bye-laws which in sub-section (2) clause (k), provides for the regulation of the entering into, making, performance, rescission and termination of contracts, including contracts between members or between a member and his constituent or between a member and a person who is not a member, and the consequences of default or insolvency on the part of a seller or buyer or intermediary, the consequences of a breach or omission by a seller or buyer, and the responsibility of members who are not parties to such contracts.;