TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ms. Vidhanshi Kamalia, Adv. Ms. Urvi Kukreja, Adv ORDER Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. A Claim Petition was filed by the appellant before the sole arbitrator appointed as per the bye laws of National Stock Exchange (NSE) for restoration of securities held by the appellant which were allegedly illegally sold by the respondent-firm. According to the case of the appellant, the loss incurred was of Rs.21,70,143/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs seventy thousand one hundred forty three). The sole arbitrator rejected the claim of the appellant. 4. An appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal of NSE. The Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant was dismissed. 7. As far as legal position is concerned at it stands today, the Courts dealing with Sections 34 or 37 proceedings under the 1996 Act have no power to modify the Award. However, by the order dated 20th February, 2024 a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court has passed an order referring the issue to a larger Bench. 8. There are facts which are very peculiar. The first is that the present age of the appellant is 87 years. She had opened a trading account with the respondent in March, 2005. On 27th September, 2013 an Award was made directing the respondent to give credit in the sum of Rs.21,70,143/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs seventy thousand one hundred forty three). 9. After the Appellate Arbitral ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 37 of the 1996 Act. By the impugned judgment, the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the respondent was partly allowed. Paragraph 12 which is the operative part of the impugned judgment is as follows: "12. In view of the above discussion, FAO No.435/2016 is allowed and the reliefs granted by the impugned judgment of interest and compensation as per paras 22 and 23 are set aside and quashed. FAO No.492/2016 of Ms. Sharda Kapur will stand dismissed as neither the court below nor this Court can grant the relief of return of the shares as is being prayed by Ms. Sharda Kapur and which relief though prayed for in the arbitration proceedings was denied and Ms. Sharda Kapur was only granted a money decree....