2002 (6) TMI 455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erit in the petitioners contentions against it. The Appellate Bench had directed the petitioners to deposit 15 per cent of the amount awarded by the panel of the arbitrators under Bye-law No. 274A of the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai, 1957. This order to deposit the amount representing 15 per cent of the amount awarded, was made by the Appellate Bench by order dated 27-9-2001 when that Bench refused to exempt the petitioners from depositing the whole of the amount awarded. 3. Thereafter by final award dated 28-1-2002 the Appellate Bench rejected the appeal relying on a rule as a part of regulation 15.23(V)(2) framed under Bye-law No. 263, which reads as follows : "(2) An application for exemption to pay....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Court in M.A. & Sons v. Madras Oil & Seeds Exchange Ltd. AIR 1965 Mad. 392 has observed as follows : "(11) The third point may be quite briefly disposed of. Actually it largely depends upon the interpretation to be placed upon the words in condition No. 7 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act, that 'the award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively'. Naturally, these words have to be construed as subject to any right of appeal, which might be provided for either by the contract itself, or by any Bye-law governing the parties; AIR 1927 Cal. 647 is clear authority for this view. No doubt, except upon grounds specified in section 30 of the Act, an award is not liable to be set aside, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bstance in the petitioners contention that there was no arbitration agreement between the petitioners, viz., Dedhia Investments (P.) Ltd. and the respondents, viz., JRD Securities (P.) Ltd. The learned arbitrators have as a fact found that the petitioner-company is an investment company and the transactions were made in the petitioners name. The Delivery Book produced by the respondents showed delivery of shares made to the petitioner-company. The petitioners balance sheet obtained from the Registrar of Companies for the year ended 31-3-1999 reflects that the petitioners had paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 to Mr. Jagdeep R. Doshi as a deposit and not as a loan. Mr. Kamdar, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that contracts notes for ....