https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194446 Procedural objections to an arbitral award failed where the claim was founded on MCX grievance and arbitration pleadings, the respondent answered those pleadings on merits, and the exchange bye-laws allowed oral evidence only with tribunal permission; no prejudice from the absence of a separately styled statement of claim or oral evidence was shown. The award was also sustained on merits because the record did not establish authorised transactions, proof of margin demand, or delivery of contract notes, and the tribunal's findings were not shown to be perverse. On the rejected portion of the claim, the Court noted that it could not grant the substantive relief itself but could remit the matter for a supplementary award under section 34(4). en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Sep 2017 11:00:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194446 Procedural objections to an arbitral award failed where the claim was founded on MCX grievance and arbitration pleadings, the respondent answered those pleadings on merits, and the exchange bye-laws allowed oral evidence only with tribunal permission; no prejudice from the absence of a separately styled statement of claim or oral evidence was shown. The award was also sustained on merits because the record did not establish authorised transactions, proof of margin demand, or delivery of contract notes, and the tribunal's findings were not shown to be perverse. On the rejected portion of the claim, the Court noted that it could not grant the substantive relief itself but could remit the matter for a supplementary award under section 34(4). Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194446