ULHAS DANDEKAR vs SUSHIL FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD

Judgment text excerpt

CARBP-1175-2019=ARBP-1216-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1175 OF 2019 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1216 OF 2019 Ulhas Dandekar …Petitioner Versus Sushil Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha a/w Shanay Shah, Darshan Mehta, Aaditya Mapara, i/b Dhruve Liladhar & Co., Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Simil Purohit, Senior Counsel a/w Jayant Gaikwad, i/b Ajay Khandar & Co., Advocates for Respondent. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. Reserved on : March 21, 2025 Pronounced on : March 27, 2025 JUDGEMENT : Context and Background: 1. The core issue that falls for consideration in these Petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ the Act”) is whether the absence of a prior written or recorded instruction for every transaction effected by a client through a stock broker would be fatal to a claim by the Page 1 of 29 March 27, 2025 Digitally signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN GAJANAN PALKAR PALKAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:01:19 +0530 CARBP-1175-2019=ARBP-1216-2019.doc stock broker to settle accounts. For the reasons set out in this judgement, I am unable to agree with the Appellant that in the facts of this case, he has no liability to pay his dues owing to admitted absence of such instructions. 2. The captioned Petitions challenge two arbitral awards, both dated May 29, 2019 (collectively, “Impugned Award”), which are passed by an appellate arbitral tribunal constituted under the bye-laws of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (“NSE”), disposing of cross-appeals against an earlier award dated January 22, 2019 (“First Award”) passed by the arbitral tribunal of the first instance. 3. In a nutshell, Mr. Ulhas D