AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop V. Mohta, J.—The Petitioner has challenged award dated 29 April 2010 passed by the panel of Arbitrator of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, NSEIL) as per their Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has raised preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present Petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). Admittedly, the parties have entered into an Agreement between Stock Broker and Client, at Mumbai, on 14 October 2008. Clause 19 of the said agreement is as under:-
The stock broker and the client declare and agree that the transactions executed on the Exchange are subject to Rules; Byelaws and Regulations and circulars issued there under of the Exchange and all parties to such trade shall have submitted to the jurisdiction of such court as may be specified by the Byelaws and Regulations of the Exchange for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Rules, Byelaws and Regulations of the Exchange and the circulars issued there under.
Here it is therefore, necessary to read and refer the relevant provisions of the bye-laws of NSEIL.
Regulations-Part A (Capital Market Segment)
5.2 SEAT OF ARBITRATION
(a) The Relevant Authority may provide for different seats of arbitration for different regions of the country either generally or specifically and in such an event the seat of arbitration shall be the place so provided by the Relevant Authority. Save as otherwise specified by the Relevant Authority, the seat of arbitration for different regions shall be as follows:-
(b) The premises/location where arbitration shall take place shall be such place as may be identified by the Exchange from time to time and intimated to the arbitrator and the parties to the dispute accordingly.
5.3 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF SEAT OF ARBITRATION
Save as otherwise specified by the Relevant Authority, the criteria for selection of seat of arbitration for a particular matter is as follows:
* "TM" stands for "Trading Member", "C" stands for "Constituent" and "I" stands for "Issuer".
5.3A JURISDICTION OF COURTS
For the purpose of Byelaw 17 of Chapter XI of the Byelaws of the Exchange, in matters where the Exchange is a party to the dispute, the Civil Courts at Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction and in all other matters, proper courts within the area covered under the respective Regional Arbitration Centre shall have jurisdiction in respect of the arbitration proceedings falling/conducted in that Regional Arbitration Centre.
The learned counsel has strongly relied upon a Judgment of this Court Kotak Securities Limited Vs. Chetan Bhandary & Ors. in Arbitration Petition No. 13 of 2008 (Coram:-A.S. Oka, J.) dated 25 November 2008, whereby this Court on facts and circumstances and considering the agreement between the parties upheld the preliminary objection and thereby directed to return the Petition for presentation to the proper Court. That was also the case of Arbitration, arising out of the Bye-laws of NSEIL.
I already observed and even settled by the Supreme Court that the parties are bound by their agreements. In the present case, as noted the relevant clauses of the agreement referring to the jurisdiction made it clear that the Rules, Bye laws and Regulations and the conclusions issued thereunder, will govern the Court''s jurisdiction also. Therefore, this is a case where parties have specifically agreed that particular Court should have exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, the guiding factor in the present case again would be the Rules and Regulations of the Exchange. I am inclined to observe, in the present facts and circumstances, that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition u/s 34. Such part of cause of action, in a given case, can be the foundation for consideration these aspects provided there is vagueness and/or unclear Court jurisdiction clause. I am inclined to observe that the jurisdictional issue needs to be considered from the foundation of specific agreement between the parties. Therefore, as there is no specific agreement of Mumbai Court''s jurisdiction, I am inclined to accept the preliminary objection so raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent in this matter and this Court at Mumbai has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition. Therefore, keeping all points open, I am inclined to dispose of the present Petition on the preliminary objection with regard to Court''s jurisdiction itself.
As the issue of jurisdiction has been decided by this Court for the first time, the liberty is granted to the Petitioner to move an appropriate application and/or take steps by invoking provisions of Limitation Act and/or for taking steps for condonation of delay, if required. The Petition was admittedly pending since 2011 in this Court for final disposal. All points are kept open.
It is made clear that as the Petitioner has already deposited the amount pursuance to the Award so passed. The said amount need not be transferred unless the Petition u/s 34 against the impugned Award is finally adjudicated or decided. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner and/or parties to apply for appropriate direction or for modification. The Petitioner to take steps within six weeks. With this, the Petition is disposed of with the liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.