https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765868 A composite exchange-related trading arrangement supported arbitration against a non-signatory where the parties had orally agreed to joint and several liability for the debit balance in one account. The tribunal treated the non-signatory as part of the client arrangement under BSE Bye-law 248(a), and the jurisdictional objection was weakened by participation in the arbitration and failure to press it effectively under Section 16. On Section 37 review, the High Court could not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own factual view where the award rested on a possible and reasonable assessment of oral and documentary material. The award was therefore not perverse or patently illegal and was restored. en-us Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:30:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765868 A composite exchange-related trading arrangement supported arbitration against a non-signatory where the parties had orally agreed to joint and several liability for the debit balance in one account. The tribunal treated the non-signatory as part of the client arrangement under BSE Bye-law 248(a), and the jurisdictional objection was weakened by participation in the arbitration and failure to press it effectively under Section 16. On Section 37 review, the High Court could not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own factual view where the award rested on a possible and reasonable assessment of oral and documentary material. The award was therefore not perverse or patently illegal and was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765868