Umashankar R. Gupta (Huf vs Shilpa Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 27 July, 2009

                                          1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION




                                                                              
                        ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 140 OF 2009




                                                      
    Umashankar R. Gupta (HUF)                                  ...Petitioner.
                  Vs.




                                                     
    Shilpa Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.                             ...Respondent.


    Mr. Dipesh P. Guchia with Mr. PradeepKumar G. Dubey for the Petitioner.




                                             
    Mr. Simil Purohit i/by M/s. Purohit & Co. for the Respondent.
                             
                               CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

DATED :- 27th JULY, 2009.

P.C.-

1 The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 21st October,

2008 passed by the sole Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Bye-Laws,

Rules and Regulations of National Stock Exchange of India, Mumbai (NSE).

There is no dispute that before entering into such transaction, the parties,

needs to sign various documents, including the Stock Broker and Client

Agreement. The execution of the said document is not at all in dispute.

The parties have signed various other agreements/documents, this includes

the letter of standing instructions and mandate to issue contract notes in

digital format. Those terms and conditions of issuance of contract notes in

digital format are as under:-

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:05 :::
2

“1. Digital Contract Notes in the format as may be prescribed
by the Exchange from time to time will be mailed to our
E-mail address.

3. I/We undertake to check the contract notes and bring the
discrepancies to your notice within 24 hours of such

issuance of contract notes. My/our non-verification or
not acce3ssing the contract notes on regular basis shall
not be a reason for disputing the contract note at any
time.

6. In case of any failure in system or errors in digital
contract notes, contract notes will be issued in physical
form, which will be binding on the me/us.

7. It will be our responsibility to regularly check the mailbox

and keeping the storage space for new email messages.”

2

There is no dispute about the signatures on these terms and

conditions. The submission is made for the first time that the E-mail

address was never given by the Petitioner to the Respondent and the same

was not mentioned in the client information column. However, in the above

form, to issue contract note in digital format provided E-mail I.D. of the

Petitioner. The learned Arbitral Tribunal considered the various material on

record including the statement to show that from time to time digital

contract notes were sent/ forwarded. The Respondents have placed on

record the documents, status report showing the date, file name, status,

client ID, time and E-mail to justify their case that from time to time, as per

the practice and as per the agreement, forwarded intimations/ digital

contract notes. Apart from this, the contract notes were physically

delivered also.

3 Having once noted the material on record and the case of the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:05 :::
3

Respondents of service of the digital contract notes from time to time, the

Arbitral Tribunal, therefore, after considering the material as well as the

submissions of both the parties as they appeared and contested the matter

even on merit also, has given findings which in my view, in no way can be

said to be perverse as sought to be alleged.

4 The basic agreement was of December, 2007. The parties have

entered into a business accordingly. Now, objecting only these transactions

of 15th January, 2008 to 24th January, 2008 for want of communication and

for want of instructions, is also without any substance. The Petitioner in

fact, issued cheques, known fully the transaction in this regard itself. There

is nothing on record to show any objection and/ or any justification, at any

point of time, about such earlier transactions based upon the same

agreement.

5 The Respondent’s submission that transactions were done without

instructions, needs detailed material and particulars, which in the present

case are also missing. The evidence to support the case of the Petitioner has

been rightly appreciated and noted while granting the award.

6 Resultantly, there is no merit in the Petition. The Petition is

accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:50:05 :::