JUDGMENT
A.S. Oka, J.
1. Submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).
The petition arises out of the award dated 1st September, 2003 made by an Arbitral Tribunal as well as the award dated 17th January, 2005 by the Appellate Bench.
2. The petitioner was a registered Sub-Broker of the respondent since the year 1997. The respondent was a Member of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai. According to the case of the petitioner as a sub-broker, he was catering to the retail clients with full knowledge and consent of the respondent. The petitioner had a running account with the respondent. The respondent was the main broker. According to the case of the petitioner, the respondent being the main broker used to dictate all the terms. It will be necessary to refer to the dispute which was referred to the arbitration. According to the case of the respondent, in the Books of Account maintained by the respondent, a sum of Rs. 28,14,323.62 remained due and payable by the petitioner. A Reference was made as there was a dispute regarding the liability to pay the aforesaid amount. There was a counter-claim filed by the petitioner in the amount aggregating to Rs. 1,01,17,447/- and after deducting the claim of Rs. 28,14,323.62 made by the petitioner, he claimed a net sum of Rs. 73,03,123.38.
3. It is stated by the respondent in the statement of claim that an agreement was entered into on 3rd October, 2000 between the respondent and the petitioner. By the said agreement, the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Broker affiliated to the respondent. It is stated that the agreement was registered with the SEBI. On the application of the petitioner, BOLT was installed at the office of the petitioner at Goregaon, at Mumbai. The petitioner effected various transactions from the said BOLT. In respect of the said transactions, the respondent had prepared, issued and delivered to the petitioner the contract notes which are received, retained and accepted by the petitioner. The respondent had also prepared, issued and delivered to the petitioner the settlement-wise bills which are also received, retained and accepted by the petitioner without any objection. In the statement of the claim, it is stated that the respondent had maintained account of the petitioner in the Books of Account in the ordinary and regular course of business and at the foot of the said account, a sum of Rs. 28,14.323.62 remained due and payable by the petitioner as on 30th August, 2001. Therefore, the respondent made a claim in the aforesaid amount with interest thereon at the rate of 8$£> per annum.
4. The petitioner filed a reply-cum-counter-claim. The petitioner disputed the correctness of the Statement of Account and denied that he was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 28,14,323.62. It is stated that the respondent continued to be with the petitioner upto 9th October, 2001 i.e. even after the date of filing the Arbitration Petition and the BOLT terminal was discontinued by the respondent onf^5n/15th October, 2001.
5. It was contended that the respondent violated SEBI guide-lines and the provisions of Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai. It was alleged that the petitioner has suffered loss due to breach of assurances on the part of the respondent. It is contended that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- in cash out of which Rs. 50,000/- was reversed and cash was repaid to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner made a claim on account of recovery of brokerage of Rs. 6,71,431.77. In the reply-cum-counterclaim, it was pointed out that a claim was being made on account of wrong debit of Rs. 47,82,487.80 in the ledger account of the petitioner dated 27th March, 2000. It is contended that the said claim is required to be reduced from the claim made by the respondent. As stated earlier, the petitioner contended that he is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,01,17,447/- from the respondent and after deducting the amount claimed by the respondent, a counter-claim was made in the sum of Rs. 73,03,123.38.
6. A rejoinder was filed by the respondent which also contained reply to the counter-claim. Apart from other contentions, it was contended by the respondent that the petitioner had requested the respondent to arrange for finance in the sum of Rs. 45,00,000/-. Therefore, the respondent arranged finance by way of internal Vyaj Badla of Rs. 46,95,900/- and issued a bill dated 21st March, 2000. It is stated that subsequently, the said Badla was released and the respondent had prepared a bill dated 21st May, 2000. It is alleged that the said bill was received, retained and accepted by the petitioner. It is stated that as it was a Vyaj Badla transaction, the respondent had maintained a separate account for the same. It is stated that at the end of March, 2000, the respondent had transferred an amount of Rs. 46,96,904.36 to the running account of the petitioner. Various other contentions were raised in the said reply.
7. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, a contention was raised by the petitioner for challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the claim as the debit balance is primarily arising on account of internal Badla transaction which was not carried out on the floor of the exchange. The issue of jurisdiction was considered by the Arbitral Tribunal and was decided by holding that the entire claim made by the respondents was covered by the arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal held that the petitioner had admitted the liability to the extent of Rs. 28,14,323.62. The Arbitral Tribunal gave a credit for shares lying with the respondent in the sum of Rs. 10,97,870/-. The Arbitral Tribunal also gave credit for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 9th October, 2001 to 31st October, 2001. Thus, an award made was in the sum of Rs. 13,04,900.16 against the petitioner. The counter-claim of the petitioner to the extent of a sum of Rs. 10,97,870/- was accepted.
8. It must be noted here that the petitioner had preferred an Appeal for challenging the Arbitral award. The said appeal being Appeal No. 10-A of 2004 was not entertained as compliance was not made by the petitioner regarding deposit of the requisite amount as per the Regulations. The Appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on account of non-compliance. However, in the Appeal preferred by the respondent for challenging the Arbitral Award, the petitioner filed a cross objection. The Appellate bench modified the award by holding that the respondent was entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 28,14,323.62 from the petitioner. The Arbitral award had given a credit to the petitioner of Rs. 10,97,870/- being the value of the shares purchased by the petitioner’s clients which were not delivered by the respondent. The Appellate bench reduced the said amount to Rs. 2,84,192.15. Insofar as the claim of Rs. 6,50,000/- is concerned, the Appellate Bench reduced the same to Rs. 1,01,000/-. Apart from these two amounts, the Appellate Bench gave a credit in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner by way of security deposit. Thus, the Appellate Bench passed an award in the sum of Rs. 23,29,147.71 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19th October, 2001 till the date of realisation. The Appellate Bench held that cross objection filed by the petitioner was not maintainable on account of the dismissal of the Appeal earlier preferred by the petitioner.
9. The learned Counsel for the parties have made elaborate submissions. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Appellate Bench has erroneously not entertained the cross objection filed by the petitioner. He submitted that the Appeal preferred by the petitioner was not dismissed on merits but it was dismissed on account of failure to pay requisite fees on the Memorandum of Appeal. He invited my attention to the relevant Rules and Regulations and submitted that even though an appeal preferred by the petitioner was not entertained, the cross-objection filed by the petitioner as a matter of right ought to have been entertained and decided on merits. He submitted that under the relevant regulations, there was no provision for deposit amount as a condition precedent for filing a cross-objection. He submitted that the Appellate Bench has committed an error by not deciding the cross-objection on merits. He submitted that the cross-objection could not have been rejected only on the ground that Appeal No. 10-A preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on account of noncompliance with the procedural requirement.
10. He invited my attention to the objection regarding jurisdiction raised by the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal. He submitted that in any event the Appellate Tribunal ought to have considered the objection regarding jurisdiction raised by the petitioner. He pointed out that there was a specific claim made in the statement of claim of the respondent on the basis of a Vyaj Badla transaction. He submitted that the Vyaj Badla transaction was not covered by Bye-law 248(A) which provides for arbitration. He submitted that the transaction of Vyaj Badla did not arise out of or in relation to dealings, transactions and contracts made subject to Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Stock Exchange or anything incidental thereto or anything pursuance thereof. He submitted that the claim was not at all covered Bye-law 248(A). He invited my attention to the documents relating to the aforesaid Vyaj Badla transaction. He submitted that in any event, the said transaction was a bogus transaction as evidenced by the documents on record. He submitted that the issue of jurisdiction should have been dealt with by the Appellate Bench. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in India Household and Health Care Limited v. LG Household and Health Care Limited . He also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya (2003) 5 SCC page 534. He submitted that there is an illegality committed by the Appellate Bench and therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. He also pointed out that the liability of the sum of Rs. 28,14,323.62 was not at all admitted by the petitioner.
11. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner being Appeal No. 10-A was rejected. Without challenging the said order, the petitioner could not have filed cross-objection. It is submitted that the cross objection is nothing but an appeal and in fact to the memorandum of cross-objection, a copy of memorandum of appeal preferred by the petitioner has been annexed and it is stated in the cross objection that what is stated in the Memorandum of Appeal has been adopted by the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner did not challenge the order by which his appeal was rejected. He submitted that in view of the rejection of the Appeal, the cross-objection was not maintainable and therefore, it was not open for the petitioner to raise the issue of jurisdiction in this Petition under Section 34. He submitted that considering the scheme of Regulations, doctrine of merger is clearly applicable and the arbitral award merges in the award passed by the Appellate Tribunal. He submitted that in this Petition under Section 34, the challenge can be only to an award made by the Appellate Tribunal. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Dedhia Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. JRD Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. . He also placed reliance on the decision dated 23rd July, 2007 of Division Bench in the case of M/s Dowell Leasing and Finance v. Radheshyam B. Khandelwal and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 1133 of 2006. He submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to raise issue of jurisdiction before this Court.
12. He pointed out that in any event there is a clear admission of liability by the petitioner as reflected from documents on record. He invited my attention to the fact that the entry of the amount of Vyaj Badla transaction was reversed in the books of account of the respondent. He submitted that in view of unequivocal admission of liability, there is no illegality. He submitted that there is a letter of confirmation which is admittedly issued by the petitioner acknowledging his liability to pay. He submitted that considering the limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the said Act, no case is made out for interference.
13. I have carefully considered the submission. It will be necessary at the outset to advert to certain Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai being Bye-law 260 and Bye-law 274-A. The said Bye-laws reads thus:
260. (1) An arbitration award may be set aside by the Court on an application made under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds mentioned in that Section;
(2) Whenever an award made under these Bye-laws and Regulations is set aside by the Court, the matter shall be against referred to arbitration as provided in these Bye-laws and Regulations and the claims, differences and disputes shall be decided by arbitration only.
274-A. Appeal Bench:
1. The Executive Director of the Exchange shall constitute one or more Appeal Benches, each comprising of five arbitrators from the panel of arbitrators constituted by the Governing Board under Bye-law 262(b). Out of the five arbitrators, three shall be non-members and two shall be members.
2. None of the arbitrators who have heard the reference or passed the award shall be a member of the Appeal Bench hearing an appeal against that award.
3. A party dissatisfied with an Award may appeal to the Appeal Bench against such award within 15 days of the receipt of such award.
4. The party appealing shall pay the necessary fees and charges for preferring the appeal as may be fixed by the Governing Board from time to time.
5. No appeal shall be entertained by the Arbitration Secretary against an award of the Lower Bench, unless the appellant has first deposited the amount awarded with the Exchange. If the amount awarded is deposited by the member and the same is credited in a separate account as contemplated under Bye-law 259(A), the debit made to the account of the member as provided in the said Bye-law shall be reversed.
14. It will be also necessary to refer to the relevant provisions regarding an appeal against an arbitral award. Clause I of Regulation 15.23 of the Regulations under Bye-laws 263 of Stock Exchange, Mumbai prescribes a form of an appeal against arbitral award. The same Regulation requires payment of institution and credit fees in appeal. The Clause VIII of Regulation 15.23 provides for cross-objections to be filed by the respondent in an admitted Appeal. It is provided that where in any case in which the respondent has filed a memorandum of cross-objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or dismissed in default, The cross-objection may nevertheless be heard and determined after due notice to the other party as the Appellate Bench thinks fit. The perusal of the scheme of rules framed by the Mumbai Stock Exchange shows that the cross-objection under the said rules is on par with the cross-objection provided under Rule 22 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is not seriously disputed that the challenge of the petitioner in Appeal No. 10-A is more or less similar to the challenge in the cross-objection filed by the petitioner.
15. It will be necessary to refer to the award made by the Appellate Tribunal. There are two reasons given for non-consideration of the cross-objection. Firstly, the cross-objection cannot be entertained as an appeal preferred by the petitioner raising the same challenges has been dismissed or rejected. Secondly, the Appellate Bench observed that the cross-objection being nothing short of an Appeal, the petitioner must deposit the amount awarded with the stock exchange. The Appeal Bench gave a ruling to that effect in Minutes dated 17th February, 2007.
16. Perusal of the relevant clauses of the regulations and especially Clause IX of Regulation 15.23 shows that in a case where an appeal preferred by an Appellant against arbitral award is either withdrawn or dismissed for default, the cross-objection preferred by the respondent in such appeal may nevertheless be heard and determined. Thus, the cross-objection contemplated by the rules is in the nature of a cross appeal which can be independently decided even if the appeal in which the same is filed is either withdrawn or dismissed in default. Once, an appeal preferred by the present petitioner was dismissed may be on account of non-payment of requisite amount, the petitioner could not have filed cross-objection raising the same contentions which are raised in the appeal which was dismissed on account of failure to comply with mandatory requirements under rules. Moreover, the Appellate Bench was right in holding that the cross-objection could not have been entertained without the petitioner depositing the requisite amount. The cross objection provided in Clause VIII of Regulation 15.23 is in the nature of a cross-appeal and hence is governed by rules which apply to the appeals. Therefore, it is very difficult to find fault with the Appellate Tribunal when the said Tribunal did not entertain the cross-objection filed by the petitioner.
17. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent was that as the cross-objection has been rightly rejected and as the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, it is not open for the petitioner now to agitate issue of jurisdiction inasmuch as the finding given by the Arbitral Tribunal on the issue of jurisdiction has not been challenged by the petitioner. His submission is that considering the rules of the Stock Exchange what can be challenged under Section 34 is only an award of the Appellate Tribunal as the doctrine of merger is clearly applicable. A reliance was placed on the case of Dedhia Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. J.R.D. Securities Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the case before the learned Single Judge, the challenge was to the final award of the Appellate Bench of the Mumbai Stock Exchange. The Appeal of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Appellate Bench on account of the failure of the petitioner to deposit the requisite amount. The question arose before the learned Single Judge was whether it will be permissible to allow the petitioners to raise a ground about legality and validity of the arbitral award after his appeal before the Appellate Bench was dismissed on the ground of non-deposit of the amount. The learned Single Judge observed that there is no reason why the doctrine of merger should not apply to the award of the Appellate Bench particularly having regard to the scheme of Bye-laws which provide for an appeal. The learned Single Judge relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of Madras High Court and accepted the contention that the award of the Arbitral Tribunal merges with the award made by the Appellate Tribunal. It must be stated here that Bye-laws or Regulation or Rules of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai do not provide that a person aggrieved by the award passed at the first instance by the Arbitral Tribunal of the Stock Exchange must necessarily prefer an appeal before the Appellate Bench. Bye-law 260 shows that an aggrieved person may file an application against the award passed at the first instance by the Arbitral Tribunal by invoking Section 34 of the said Act. However, when the aggrieved party adopts a remedy of an appeal, it is obvious that the award passed by the Appellate Bench will govern the rights and liabilities of the parties and that is how the doctrine of merger has been applied by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case. The reason is that once an award is made by the Appellate Bench, the award made by the Arbitral Tribunal will not exist independently and would merge in the award passed by the Appellate Authority. The Award of the Appellate Bench completely replaces the Award made by the Arbitrators. Therefore, it is obvious that once there is an award passed by trie Appellate Bench, the party aggrieved by the award made by the Arbitral Tribunal cannot challenge the original award by filing an application under Section 34 of the said Act. Therefore, by the present Petition, the petitioner cannot challenge the original award of the Arbitral Tribunal in view of the merger of the said Award with the Award of the Appellate Bench.
As held earlier, the Appellate Authority was justified in not entertaining the cross-objection on both the grounds which are taken by the Appellate Tribunal.
18. However, a submission was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while opposing the appeal which was preferred by the respondent, the petitioner could have always contended that the Arbitral Tribunal was not possessing jurisdiction. He has, therefore, taken me through the challenge on the ground of jurisdiction by pointing out as to how the Arbitral Tribunal has dealt with the said ground. I have, therefore, considered the said submission on merits. It will be necessary to refer to the statement of the claim submitted by the respondent before the Arbitrators. The claim made before the Arbitrators is based on the Statement of Account confirmed by the petitioner by letter dated 4th September, 2001. The said letter has been annexed to the statement of claim filed by the respondent. I find that there is no dispute as regard the said letter of confirmation issued by the petitioner which acknowledges liability to pay the sum of Rs. 28,14,323.62. In the reply-cum-counter-claim, the said liability is denied by the petitioner. The confirmation of the Statement of Account by a letter dated 4th September, 2001 of the petitioner has been referred to in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim filed by the respondent. The said paragraph 5 is dealt with by the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the reply. There is no denial of execution of the letter dated 4th September, 2001 in the said reply. In the said reply and in particular in paragraph 18, it is stated that there is a wrong debit of Rs. 47,82,478.80 vide a Bill No. A-8-227. It is submitted in paragraph 16 that the said transaction is not a transaction covered under the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange and it is clearly a private loan transaction between the parties. A submission has been made on the basis of Bill No. A-052-0244 by contending that the endorsement made by the respondent on the said bill shows that the same reflects a bogus transaction of shares. It is submitted that the dispute about the said transaction will not be covered by Bye-law 248-A of the Stock Exchange.
19. In the reply filed to the counter-claim, the respondent has come out with the case that on the request made by the petitioner, the respondents arranged a finance by way of Vyaj Badla of Rs. 46,95,900/- and issued a bill being settlement No. A/52/243 dated 21st March, 2000. It is specifically stated that the said Vyaj Badla was released and the Applicants had prepared a bill dated 21st May, 2000 bearing No. A/005/132. It is stated that the said bill was received, retained and accepted by the petitioner. It is also stated that the respondent had transferred the said amount of Rs. 46,96,104.36 to the running account of the petitioner.
20. On this aspect, my attention was invited to the extract of the account of the petitioner maintained by the respondents which shows entry on 31st March, 2000 of the sum of Rs. 46,97,104.36 and a credit entry in the sum of Rs. 47,82,487.80 made on 5th May, 2000. It must be also stated here that on the bill there is an acceptance recorded by the petitioner. The acceptance recorded in writing by the petitioner has not been disputed by him.
21. It will be necessary to refer to a letter dated 4th September, 2001 sent by the petitioner to the respondents. The relevant part of the said letter reads thus:
Ref : Outstanding of Rs. 28,14,323.62 as on 28-6-2001 due to you
—————————————————————–
Dear Sir,
(1) This has reference to abovementioned outstanding and personal discussions undersigned had with your Mr. L.R. Shah, Director, from time to time.
(2) Please find herewith enclosed outstanding statement as on 31st August, 2001 duly confirmed by me.
(3) I am making all efforts to clear your outstanding amount as early as possible but not later than 31st March, 2002.
(4) I undertake to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from 1-10-2001 on quarterly basis till full and final payment of your dues.
(5) I am highly obliged for your co-operation solicited during past and present circumstances prevailing in the market. I, once again, thank you and oblige and request yourselves to kindly confirm the same.
As pointed out earlier, it is shown that the entry of Vyaj Badla transaction was reversed and on 4th September, 2001, there is a clear acknowledgment of outstanding of Rs. 28,14,323.61 as on 28th August, 2001. It must be also mentioned here that in the counter-claim filed by the petitioner, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 28,14,323.16 has been adjusted and the claim has been restricted to the balance amount.
22. The Arbitral Tribunal has dealt with Bye-law 248(A) and has held thus:
Bye-law 248(a) envisages referral of all claims differences and disputes between Members and Non Members arising out of or in relation to dealings, transactions and contracts made subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange or to anything incidental thereto or in pursuance thereof. As we understand it, this bye-law confers a jurisdiction on this Tribunal to entertain and adjudicate upon claims and disputes which arise on account of transactions on the Exchange and matters “incidental thereto” or in “pursuance thereof. Therefore, though the starting point of the dispute may be the transaction made subject to the Bye-laws of the Exchange the jurisdiction is not limited only to those transactions. Once the dispute is such that it is inextricably linked with the relationships between the parties on account of transactions on the Exchange then the said dispute must also fall within the scope of this Arbitral Tribunal. It is not as if the Applicant arranged for finance to meet liabilities of the respondent which were independent, say for purchase of a house. The broker arranged for finance in order to enable the respondent sub-broker to meet his liabilities as sub-broker. In our opinion this arrangement of finance was clearly “incidental to” or in “pursuance of the dealings and transactions between the two as broker and sub-broker. The fact that the liability was on account of internal badla, in our opinion would not make any difference. The defence of the respondent therefor by way of the claim of Rs. 47,82,487.80 is rejected.
23. Firstly, the claim made by the respondents has been admitted by a letter dated”4th September, 2001 by the petitioner. The said claim is on the basis of a confirmed account reflecting transactions between the petitioner and the respondent which are made subject to Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Stock Exchange. The said claim is not based on the Vyaj Badla transaction. The entry of Vyaj Badla transaction has been reversed. Therefore, the finding of the Arbitrators on the issue of jurisdiction cannot be faulted with.
24. In this Petition under Section 34 of the said Act, the scope of interference is very limited. This Court is not sitting over an appeal against the Award made by the Appellate Bench. The Arbitral Tribunal gave a credit to the petitioner for the shares lying with the respondent in the sum of Rs. 10,97,870/-and a credit for the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/-. A modification made by the Appellate Tribunal is by giving credit for the shares sold by the respondent in the sum of Rs. 2,84,192.15. From the sum of Rs. 28,14,323.62, the Appellate Tribunal had deducted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of security deposit as per the award of the Arbitrators and has given a credit in the sum of Rs. 1,01,000/-for the difference between Rs. 6,50,000/- and Rs. 5,49,000/-.
25. The Arbitral Tribunal accepted the counter-claim to the extent of Rs. 10,97,870/-. A modification made by the Appellate Tribunal is on the following ground:
Since the records available with the lower Tribunal included correspondence between the parties regarding sale of the shares as also the bills pertaining to the sale of the shares, this Tribunal is unable to agree with the observation of the lower Tribunal that the exact time of the sale of the shares had not been set out. However, the respondent is entitled to credit in respect of the sales proceeds of the shares, the purchase price of which has been debited to his account. The relevant figure is a sum of Rs. 2,84,192.15. We also note the Appellant holds the following shares (which have not been sold), the purchase price or which has been debited to the account of the respondent:
30,406 shares of Creative Word
5,769 shares of Sanyo Impex
50 shares of SRG Info.
The respondent would be entitled to receive delivery of these shares once he meets his commitment.
There is no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Appeal Bench.
26. Insofar as counter-claim of Rs. 6,50,000/- is concerned, the Appellate Tribunal has relied upon what is set out in the aforesaid letter dated 4th September, 2001 by which the petitioner admitted his liability to pay interest of Rs. 5,49,000/-. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has awarded the difference between the sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- and Rs. 5,49,000/- to the respondent and that is how the figure of Rs. 23,29,131.47 has been arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal. Insofar as counter-claim of Rs. 10,37,870/- and counter-claim of Rs. 6,50,000/- are concerned, there is a material available on the record on the basis of which the Appellate Tribunal has rendered the aforesaid findings. There is no scope to interfere with the findings recorded on the basis of documentary evidence on record. It is not permissible under Section 34 of the said Act to re-appreciate the evidence or to go into the question of inadequacy of the evidence.
27. No case for interference is made out by the petitioner and accordingly, the Arbitration Petition is dismissed.
On the prayer made by the petitioner, the operation of the order made in this Petition will remain stayed by eight weeks from today.