Valid arbitration agreement in stock exchange contract notes upheld; award interference refused despite evidence and procedural objections.

A contract note issued under stock exchange regulations may constitute a valid arbitration agreement even without signatures from both parties, where it incorporates the exchange bye-laws and arbitration machinery. The court treated the section 7 requirement harmoniously with the special regime governing exchange transactions and rejected the jurisdictional objection. It also reiterated that section 34 does not permit reappraisal of evidence or interference merely because the arbitrator did not discuss every document; a reasoned factual assessment is sufficient. Non-supply of written submissions in advance was held not, by itself, to amount to denial of equal treatment or a fair opportunity under section 18. The award was sustained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitral award could be set aside on the ground that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the contract notes were not signed by both parties and no separate arbitration agreement was executed; (ii) Whether the award was vitiated under section 34 for alleged non-consideration of evidence and alleged breach of section 28 of the Act; (iii) Whether non-supply of written submissions in advance amounted to a breach of section 18 of the Act and rendered the award liable to be set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitral award could be set aside on the ground that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the contract notes were not signed by both parties and no separate arbitration agreement was executed.

Analysis: The contract notes were issued under the National Stock Exchange regulations framed under section 9 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and expressly made dealings subject to the exchange bye-laws, rules and regulations. The bye-laws treated all such contracts as subject to arbitration and empowered the tribunal to decide disputes, including whether the transactions had in fact been entered into. The requirement in section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was read harmoniously with the special contractual regime governing exchange transactions. The absence of signatures by both parties did not destroy the arbitration agreement where the contract note, signed by the broker, was executed in the prescribed statutory form and incorporated the exchange's arbitration machinery.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction failed and the arbitration agreement was held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the award was vitiated under section 34 for alleged non-consideration of evidence and alleged breach of section 28 of the Act.

Analysis: The challenge required the Court to reappraise evidence and substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator, which is impermissible. The arbitrator had examined the disputed transactions and made findings on acceptance of delivery transactions, selective acceptance of trades, and the conduct of the petitioner in disputing only later transactions. Ignoring or not expressly discussing some evidence did not amount to violation of section 28, nor did it establish a ground under section 34, as the grievance was essentially one of alleged contravention of law simpliciter and improper appreciation of evidence. The award disclosed a reasoned assessment within the arbitrator's jurisdiction as fact-finder.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed and the award was not vitiated.

Issue (iii): Whether non-supply of written submissions in advance amounted to a breach of section 18 of the Act and rendered the award liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Written submissions were not part of a mandatory procedural code governing arbitral hearings, and failure to serve them in advance did not by itself show denial of equality or of a full opportunity to present the case. The alleged lapse was not attributable to the arbitral tribunal and did not amount to procedural unfairness of the kind contemplated by section 18 or section 34(2)(a)(v). No violation of equal treatment was established.

Conclusion: The contention of procedural breach was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The award was sustained and the petition was dismissed with costs, the Court finding no jurisdictional, evidentiary, or procedural ground to interfere.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract note executed under stock exchange regulations and incorporating exchange bye-laws can constitute a valid arbitration agreement even if signed only by the broker, and an arbitral award cannot be set aside merely because the arbitrator did not advert to every piece of evidence or because written submissions were not served in advance absent demonstrated denial of equal treatment.

---