2002 (7) TMI 580

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irected to deliver certain shares specified therein to the respondent, their client. 2. The dispute between the petitioner broker and the respondent-constituent arose as follows : The petitioner entered into certain transactions on behalf of the Respondent and certain other members of the Respondent's family. (a)It appears that the Respondent had purchased 500 shares of M.T.N.L. on 13-10-1998. The Petitioner was to deliver the shares on 21st October, 1998 being the date of settlement. 3. Apparently, the petitioner failed to deliver the shares under the transaction (a) on the date of settlement, i.e., 21-10-1998. 4. On 24-11-1998 one Keyur H. Adhvaryu, addressed a letter, inter alia, on behalf of the Respondent to the Petitioner. Keyur ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e or shall be deemed to have arisen. The time taken in conciliation proceedings, if any, initiated and conducted as per the provisions of the Act and the time taken by the Relevant Authority to administratively resolve the claim, differences or disputes shall be excluded for the purpose of determining the period of six months." 9. The learned arbitrator recorded that the Petitioner did not press the question of limitation and agreed to continue with the matter. Nonetheless, the arbitrator decided the question of limitation. The only reason why the Petitioner's contention for limitation has been rejected by the arbitrator is that the time taken by the relevant authority, presumably referring to the investors grievance cell, to administrativ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of an error on the face of it when the reasons given for the decision, either in the award or in any document incorporated with it, are based upon a legal proposition which is erroneous. But where a specific question is referred, the award is not liable to be set aside on the ground of an error on the face of the award even if the answer to the question involves an erroneous decision on a point of law. But an award which ignores express terms of the contract, is bad." It is clear that in the present case the question of limitation was not a question that was specifically referred to the arbitrator as a question of law but was a question which arose incidentally in the dispute. It arose as a result of denial of the respondent's claim by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 10-1-2000. This claim was, therefore, clearly beyond six months from the date the dispute arose. 16. Mr. Khandhar, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the Petitioners had furnished various statements of account, the last of which was submitted on or about 18-1-1999. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the limitation started running after 18-1-1999. Mr. Dhanuka, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted and in my view rightly that, it would not make any difference to the question of limitation since the statement of claim has been filed on 10-1-2000, which is almost a year after the last statement of accounts is said to have been submitted. Moreover, it is clear that the demand was already made on 24-1....