The HC dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order...

The HC dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order that set aside the majority arbitral award and upheld the dissenting award, thereby permitting recovery of losses in the demat account. The court held there was no jurisdictional error under Section 37 or excess of power under Section 34 of the Act. The appellant had actual knowledge and post-trade confirmation of repeated transactions over three months and failed to protest, so absence of pre-trade authorisation under exchange regulations could not vitiate confirmed trades or excuse resultant losses. Any violation of trading regulations may attract regulatory or disciplinary consequences for the broker but does not entitle a constituent who confirmed transactions to repudiate settled trading losses.