Bombay High Court
Satco Capital Markets Ltd vs Rahul H. Bajaj on 25 August, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
ssm 1 nmal1861.16.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION (LODGING) NO. 1861 OF 2016
IN
APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 235 OF 2016
IN
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 104 OF 2014
Satco Capital Markets Ltd.
formerly known as Satco Securities
and Financial Services Limited,
a trading member of National Stock
Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange,
having office at 205, 2nd Floor,
Silver Pearl Waterfield Road, Bandra
Mumbai-400 050. ...Applicant.
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Satco Capital Markets Ltd.
formerly known as Satco Securities
and Financial Services Limited,
a trading member of National Stock
Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange,
having office at 205, 2nd Floor,
Silver Pearl Waterfield Road, Bandra
Mumbai-400 050. ...Appellant.
Vs.
Rahul H. Bajaj,
Adult, Mumbai Inhabitant, having
office at 406, Commerce House,
104 N.M. Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400 023. ....Respondent.
1/23
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2016 00:08:18 :::
ssm 2 nmal1861.16.sxw
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Nimay Dave, Mr.
C.D.Mehta, Ms. Trupti Shetty, Ms. Pooja Shah i/by M/s. Dhruve
Liladhar & Co. for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. D.A.Khambatta, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas i/by
Prasad Das Associates for the Respondent.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10 AUGUST 2016.
PRONOUNCED ON : 25 AUGUST 2016.
ORDER (PER-ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.):-
The Appellant/Applicant-Original Respondent (Satco), has
taken out this Notice of Motion for stay of the execution and operation
of the award as confirmed by impugned order dated 7 January 2016,
passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Arbitration Petition
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the
Arbitration Act"), thereby maintaining award dated 30 September
2014, passed by the Sole Arbitrator. The operative part of the award
is as under:-
"ORDER
1. For the aforesaid reasons prayers clauses (a) to (c)
and (h) of the Statement of Claim are rejected.
2. Prayer clauses (d), (e) and (f) of the Statement of
Claim are granted.
3. Prayer clause (e) is granted with modification that the
rate of interest shall be 12% p.a. simple.
ssm 3 nmal1861.16.sxw
4. The Respondent shall deliver to the Claimant 1,50,000
shares of ARBL as mentioned in prayer clause (d)
within 120 days from the date of receipt of this
Award.
5. the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant dividend of
Rs.19,83,500/- and interest @ 12% p.a. on the same
from the respective effective dates of accruement within
120 days from the passing of this Award.
6. That the Respondent shall transfer to
Applicant/Claimant all the benefits which have
accrued on said 1,50,000 shares from the date of this
claim till the delivery of the said shares to the
Claimant, within 120 days from the date of receipt of
this Award."
2 On 27 July 2016, after hearing the parties, this Court has
admitted the Appeal and expedited the hearing.
3 This Notice of Motion is listed today for hearing. There is
no issue about the maintainability of such Motion, as the present
Appeal is arising out of the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Once the
award is confirmed by the learned Single Judge, it has become
executable/enforceable "decree" of the Court under the Civil
Procedure Code (CPC) read with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act.
Therefore, this Motion by the Appellant, along with supporting
ssm 4 nmal1861.16.sxw
affidavit dated 21 June 2016, seeking the stay of execution of the
Award/Decree.
4 The Appellant is a broker member of National Stock
Exchange ("NSE") and the Bombay Stock Exchange ("BSE"). The
Respondent is the constituent of the Appellant. The Appellant had
been executing various transactions for the Respondent, since 5
January 2001 based upon a Member-Constituent Agreement in a form
prescribed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI")
along with other related documents. As agreed, there was a
consolidated account for the transactions at NSE and BSE. They used
to adjust against each other resultant debit/credit paid or received by
the concerned parties. Also a common ledger was maintained.
5 Both the parties are fully aware of the nitty-gritty of the
share-market, the fluctuations and its immediate effect on the
transactions and their respective obligations. In view of the Member-
Client Agreement, the Constituent (Respondent) is required to make
the payment of daily margin, settlement fees, brokerage, commission
and other charges. Both the parties are aware that in case of such
ssm 5 nmal1861.16.sxw
default, the Member, (the Appellant) is entitled to square off and
liquidate the outstanding amount and all the consequential losses and
is entitled to claim the balance amount, arising therefrom. It is to be
borne by the constituent alone. The parties option to settle the
dispute is always available, even after the institutional arbitral award,
by making the payment/or by handing over the shares of the date of
award or the Court. The basic cause of action in this case arose in the
year 2001 to 2002 and not in the year 2014.
6 The Applicant has made averments revolving around the
market position and fluctuations, specifically of Amara Raja Batteries
Limited, ("ARBL") between 5 March 2001 upto 15 March 2001. The
Appellant in the supporting affidavit has referred to show cause
notices dated 6 July 2001 and 27 July 2001 under Section 12 of the
Securities and Exchange Board of India, Act 1992 ("the SEBI Act")
issued by the SEBI to the parties for their respective breaches.
7 The Respondent's default in making payment to several
brokers and the various other defaults of market obligations, on or
around 9 March 2001, are part of the record. The Special Leave
ssm 6 nmal1861.16.sxw
Petition (SLP) filed by the SEBI, is still pending in the Supreme Court,
around these issues.
8 As noted on 18 October 2001, the Respondent filed
Arbitration Reference before BSE and sought delivery of 8000 shares
of ARBL, which was later enhanced to 10000 shares. Ultimately, in
the arrangement, the Respondent claimed Rs.24,76,344/- as the
monetary value of 10000 shares. The Applicant could not continue
with the counter-claim, as the transaction took place at the NSE
therefore, the issue arising out of it, could not be entertained by the
BSE Tribunal for want of jurisdiction.
9 On 27 April 2002, the BSE Arbitral Tribunal partly rejected
the claim of the Respondent and only awarded the amount of
Rs.4,75,328/-. The Appellate Bench of BSE, on 10 January 2003
directed the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs.26,99,232/- and
Rs.33,803/- towards interest and future interest @ 12% p.a. on
4,75,328/-. The stated amount was the monetary equivalent of 10000
shares on that date. This award was not challenged by the
Respondent. The Appellant, however, challenged the same. This
ssm 7 nmal1861.16.sxw
Court on 7 April 2003, set aside Award dated 10 January 2003 and
confirmed award dated 27 April 2002 made by BSE. The Respondent
got credited the amount of Rs.6,28,941/- in view of the award passed
by BSE. The Appeal against it was rejected by the Division Bench on
15 March 2004.
10 The Appellant, in the meantime, filed a claim before the
NSE Arbitral Tribunal for claiming an amount of Rs.1,71,324.13/-
with interest thereon, being the amount due and payable by the
Respondent in the ledger account. The Respondent also filed a
counter-claim. The Tribunal (NSE), on 18 November 2002, directed
the Respondent to make payment along with the interest. The
Respondent's Petition against the same, was dismissed by this Court
on 7 April 2003. The Appeal preferred against the same, was also
disposed of on 9 January 2009, and the matter was remanded back to
the Arbitral Tribunal. The said order was also challenged by the
Respondent in this Court. As recorded, by order dated 5 February
2013, pursuance to the consent terms filed, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court disposed of this Appeal by referring the disputes to the
reconstituted Tribunal. This was after about 10 years of the Award of
ssm 8 nmal1861.16.sxw
the sole Arbitrator. Strikingly, the basic cause of action and the
disputes remained at the year 2001/2002 only, as noted above.
11 The Respondent filed a fresh statement of claim before the
Tribunal and the Appellant has filed its written statement and counter-
claim. The Appellant led evidence through an affidavit on 25
February 2014. The Respondent did not lead any evidence. The
learned arbitral Tribunal, on 30 September 2014, has passed the
award as recorded above. Section 34 Petition filed by the Appellant
was also dismissed on 7 January 2016. This Court, after hearing the
parties and considering the grounds so raised and noting the
submissions admitted the present Appeal.
12 Both the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties
have read and referred to the various submissions, including the
specific averments made the Notice of Motion. The Respondent has
also filed affidavit opposing the Motion and referred various
paragraphs/contentions, with prayers and opposed the grant of stay
on execution of the impugned award, even if it should be conditional
one, by directing the Appellant to deposit 10500 share of ARBL or
ssm 9 nmal1861.16.sxw
deposit the amount in lieu of the shares. The valuation of those
shares as per the Appellant, as of today, is about 13 crores. The
Appellant, by its affidavit in rejoinder resisted the same and submitted
that the conditional order of stay be restricted to the original amount
Rs.24,76,344.46/-, so awarded by the Arbitrator in March 2002 and at
the most, with interest as of today on the said amount, being the basic
sale price in lieu of 1000 ARBL shares.
A reference is made to the various written submissions and
grounds so raised including the statement in Special Leave Petition.
Some of them are as under:-
i) "Since the Respondent has admittedly disposed off the
10,000 shares of ARBL and has drawn appropriate bills
for the same at the BSE, the Ld. Arbitrator may direct
the Respondent to pay the sum of Rs.24,76,344.46 as
admittedly shown by the Respondent at the foot of its
own Statement of Account as submitted by it before the
Tribunal."
ii) "the learned judge erred in holding that the relief sought
for by the Appellant in the reference was specifically for
the return of the 8000 shares, while not only in the sur
rejoinder, written submissions as well as in the Appeal
Memo filed by the Appellant before the Appeal Bench of
Bombay Stock had the Appellant prayed for the return of
monies accrued by the Respondent as and by way of the
sale of the said 10,000 shares of ARBL on the Bombay
Stock Exchange for which appropriate Bills had also been
drawn by the Respondent and accounting entries also
ssm 10 nmal1861.16.sxw
appropriately passed."
iii) "passed an award on 10th May 2002, allowing the
Petitioner's claim in respect of the sale price of sale of
10,000 shares of ARBL sold by the Respondent on the
BSE".
"for the sale price in respect of 10,000 shares of
ARBL sold on the BSE."
iv) "the same was made when the Petitioner was not aware
of the fact of the sale of the 10,000 shares of ARBL." and
"that subsequently on coming to know of this sale, in the
Sur-Rejoinder, Written Submissions as well as the Appeal
Memo filed by the Petitioner before the BSE Arbitrators,
the Petitioner had claimed the sale price in respect of the
10,000 shares of ARBL sold by the Respondent on the
BSE."
"erred in holding that the relief sought for by the
Petitioner in the reference was specifically for the return
of 8,000 shares, while not only in the sur rejoinder,
Written submissions, as well as in the Appeal Memo filed
by the petitioner before the Appeal Bench of Bombay
Stock Exchg, the Petitioner had claimed the sale price in
respect of the said 10,000 shares sold on the BSE for
which appropriate bills had also been drawn by the
Respondent & accounting entries also appropriately
passed by the Respondent."
14 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent,
however, referred to the affidavit filed by the Respondent that for
want of specific pleadings and grounds and submitted that the
Appellant is not entitled for any stay and/or he may be directed to
ssm 11 nmal1861.16.sxw
deposit the sale price amount at today's rate, at this stage, in lieu of
10500 ARBL shares. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Respondent has referred and relied the operative part of the Judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram:- Anoop V. Mohta and A.S.
Gadkari, JJ) in Rahul Bajaj Vs. Mangal Keshav Securities Limited & Anr.
(Appeal No. 732 of 2005) dated 15 July 2016, which reads as under:-
"b) However, the financial liability and/or the payment
and the reciprocal obligations, for handing over the
shares or payment in lieu of shares, of both the parties
would be on the basis of the date of confirmation of
award i.e. the date of Judgment-2 February 2005."
15 The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent however,
has distinguished the above Judgment on facts, that was also of a case
of ARBL shares, where the Respondent himself was the Appellant.
That was a case of National Stock Exchange transactions against some
other party. The transactions of ARBL shares were of the same
fluctuations period between 1 March 2001 to 19 March 2001. The
Court, in para 3 of the said Judgment [Rahul Bajaj (Supra)] observed
as under:-
"3 In view of peculiarity of the case and how the delay in
Arbitration proceedings decision would cause great
injustice and hardship to Respondent No.1, as the
award, at the relevant time/stage could not be
executed because of pendency before the Court initially
ssm 12 nmal1861.16.sxw
of Section 34 Application and later on because of the
present Appeal arising out of the same. After hearing
the parties and considering the submissions so made,
we are inclined to deal with the issue of withdrawal of
the Appeal and so also the resistance of the same in the
background of effect of fluctuations of share prices in
the share market.".....
The Court did not permit the Respondent (Rahul Bajaj) to claim the
share price as of the date of disposal of Appeal dated 15 July 2016. It
was restricted based upon the basic date of transactions and the date
of the confirmation of the award so passed in the year 2005. In the
case in hand, had the award was to be implemented and/or parties
agreed to accept the same by exercising the option of settlement
within reasonable time, the sale price amount so awarded of the
relevant time of sale was remained to be paid. There was no
direction/award at that point of time in the first round to deposit the
shares and on the contrary, as prayed and argued and the restricted
sale price amount was directed to be paid by the Appellant to the
Respondent.
16 The background so referred above and in view of the
award passed by the learned Arbitrator in the year 2014, the
Respondent's submission to direct the Appellant to make the payment
ssm 13 nmal1861.16.sxw
in lieu of 10500 ARBL shares at the current market price, practically
after more than 14 years, is undoubtedly very harsh situation and an
important issue, which is required to be considered finally in this
peculiar facts. The issue is whether the date for valuation of the
shares should be at the time when the cause of action arose or the
date of award passed or the related period or the date of the Appellate
award/or Courts, when the basic cause of action has remained the
same. The liability of the Appellant as per the basic date of award in
the first round was 24 lakhs and odd with interest, but the liability
based upon the present market value of the shares, comes to about 14
crores. Admittedly, the matters were pending in the Courts.
Ultimately, concluded by the sole Arbitrator as appointed in the year
2014, by the Supreme Court, by the consent of the parties. However,
due to passage of time, how the parties reacted and factually what
was the position of the claim inter-se needs to be examined.
17 The pleadings made by the Respondent, who was
Appellant (Petitioner) in the Appeal before the Supreme Court, as
relevant, are as under:-
ssm 14 nmal1861.16.sxw
"VIII. .............. The Bombay High Court ought to have
appreciated that subsequently on coming to know of
the fact of this sale. In the Sur-Rejoinder, Written
Submissions as well as the Appeal Memo filed by the
Petitioner before the BSE Arbitrator/s, the Petitioner
had claimed the sale price in respect of the 10,000
shares of ARBL sold by the Respondent on the BSE.
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court failed to appreciate
that it was erroneous to conclude that there was a
deficit against the Petitioner in the joint account
maintained by the Respondent. ......................"
The relevant paragraphs of the consent order passed by the Supreme
Court dated 5 February 2013 are as under:-
"3. Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of the consent terms
(Mark "X") entered into between the parties by invoking
our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India.
4. The existing arbitral awards, and any interim orders
passed therein, passed on the disputes between the parties
by the Arbitral Tribunals of BSE as well as NSE, as also
Orders passed by Bombay High Court thereon, are hereby
set aside."
The relevant paragraphs of the Consent Terms are as under:-
...........
1. That the parties hereby agree and consent to the
appointment of Mr. Shailesh Shah, Senior Advocate,
High Court of Bombay, Resident of Mumbai, to act as the
Sole Arbitrator to arbitrate and decide all the disputes
arising out of and in respect of the transactions done on
ssm 15 nmal1861.16.sxw
behalf of the Appellant by the Respondent either at
Bombay Stock Exchange or at National Stock Exchange.
Subject to the paragraphs 2 & 3 below, the parties are at
liberty to raise all contentions available to them in law
notwithstanding any order, interim or final award
hitherto made either by the arbitrators at Bombay Stock
Exchange or National Stock Exchange; in respect of the
disputes between the parties. The Arbitrator will hold
sittings in Mumbai.
2. That neither party would raise any objection to the
jurisdiction of the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate on the
aforesaid disputes.
3. It is further agreed that the award dated 27.04.2002
passed by the Ld. Arbitrator of Bombay Stock Exchange
Arbitration forum in Arbitration Reference No.
867/2001, order of the Appeal Bench of Bombay Stock
Exchange dated 10.01.2003 in Appeal No. 16A/2002,
the order of the Single Judge of Bombay High Court
dated 07.04.2003 in Arbitration petition No. 143/2002,
the order of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court
dated 15.03.2004 in Appeal No. 950/2003, as well as
the order of the Ld. Arbitrator of National Stock
Exchange dated 12.04.2010 in Arbitration Matter No.
CM/M-016/2002; including the interim awards made
by the said arbitrators are expressly consented to have
been set aside by the parties herein."
"6. That the Sole Arbitrator will adjudicate all the claims
between the parties uninfluenced by any prior
order/remarks passed/made in any prior proceedings
before any arbitrator/s, Courts/High Court and the
disputes between the parties will be adjudicated de
novo."
(Emphasis added)
The date of cause of action of such transactions in the share/capital
ssm 16 nmal1861.16.sxw
market goes to the root of the related disputes. Such dispute cannot
be resolved on the basis of date of appointment of new Arbitrator.
The time and date of transaction in the volatile and/or fluctuating
capital/financial/money market, any trading of financial securities,
commodities, derivatives and other fungible items of value can make
or mar the concerned people; "buyers" and "sellers", "investors",
"brokers" and "constituents", including the listed
companies/institutions or individuals. These markets are regulated by
the SEBI. There are many stock exchanges for trading in the equities
and other listed securities at national or international places. There
are huge number of share transactions or contracts entered into in
such markets in a (trading/closing sessions) given time and the
declared period. The crash or rise of the volatile market is known
phenomenon to all the concerned. The peculiarity of such
transactions cannot be compared with the other types of
transaction/contract.
18 A "share trading account" with the "stock broker or sub-
broker or individual or corporate broker" is an important step,
followed by a "Member Client Agreement Form", for the
ssm 17 nmal1861.16.sxw
"client/constituent". There are other documents undertakings
required to be signed. The order can be placed by the Client on phone
or through a web based interface and the internet contacting the
broker/sub-broker directly. Online screen based trading (BOLT)
platform can deal with more than 75 lakh transactions per day.
19 There are known mechanisms for such transactions and its
respective obligations covering the "variation margin" or
"maintenance margin" which is not collateral a daily payment of
"profits and losses". Futures are market-to-market (MTM) everyday to
ascertain the price. Any such variations in the price of the asset,
always have a direct impact on the investment strategy.
20 "Cash/Margin trading", "trigger point", "pay in-pay out on
the day", "the settlement on Second working day from the day of
trading (T+2 basis)", "Day Traders", "Hedgers", all these terms and its
effect are required to be noted by the Arbitrator and the Courts, before
considering the settlement or disputes between the parties, governed
by the stock exchange rules and regulations, apart from early and
timely decision. The early disposal and timely completion of
ssm 18 nmal1861.16.sxw
respective obligations by the parties is a must in such trading, because
of impact of volatile and fluctuation in the money and security
market. No one can afford to wait for long. No one can be the
sufferer because of the pendency of Arbitration and/or the Court
Arbitration proceedings. Prima facie, there is much substance in the
submissions as made on behalf of the Appellant that this is a peculiar
case of great injustice and hardship and irreparable injury to one
party, if stay to the award/decree not granted. On considering the
averments so made in the supportive affidavit and the reasons so
recorded, we are therefore, inclined to grant stay to the execution of
the award, however, subject to condition of depositing an amount of
market value of the shares in question as observed in the appellate
award dated 10 January 2003, with interest thereon, considering the
peculiar facts.
21 Whether there is an election made by the Respondent or
not and/or whether the Appellant has made out a case on merits, in
the background, about the share transactions of NSE by BSE Tribunal
need to be considered, taking into consideration the position of law,
then existing prior to the order passed by the Supreme Court to refer
ssm 19 nmal1861.16.sxw
the matter to the sole Arbitrator, in question and the position taken by
the parties at the relevant time, which we have noted above. We may
also note that under the consent terms, the only embargo on the
learned sole Arbitrator was that he would adjudicate all the claims
between the parties uninfluenced by any prior order/remarks
passed/made in any prior proceedings before any Arbitrator,
Courts/High Court and the disputes were accordingly to be
adjudicated de-novo. This would definitely not mean that the learned
Arbitrator could be unmindful of the position, the parties have taken
in the past in asserting their respective case, as also the factual
background which subsisted. There is no dispute that the shares in
question were already sold by the Appellant and that the same were
not available to be returned. The Respondent being conscious of this
position and accordingly had raised specific pleas in that regard,
prima facie cannot be overlooked. This becomes a relevant fact not
only touching the adjudication of the dispute but at all such material
times when issues of rights between the parties are raised and when
issues in that regard fall for judicial consideration. Even otherwise, the
aspect of fluctuation in share markets and pendency of such
litigations, are relevant factors, which need to be considered in the
ssm 20 nmal1861.16.sxw
present facts and circumstances also. On this conspectus, we are of
the clear opinion that for the purpose of interim relief, it would be
proper that the market value of the shares as prevailing on the date of
its actual disposal which would be a relevant consideration.
22 As regards interim stay pending the hearing of Section 37
Appeal, the position of law is quite clear. The Supreme Court in
Kanpur Jal Sansthan and Anr. Vs. Bapu Constructions 1, considering the
provisions of Sections 36/37 of the Arbitration Act read with Order
41, Rule 5, CPC, has reiterated as under :-
"13 We have referred to aforesaid authority solely
for the purpose that whatever may be the status of the
award under the Act in respect of any other Statute, but
when it is challenged in an appeal under Section 37 of
the Act the underlying principle of the Code of Civil
Procedure is applicable. We have thought we should
clarify the position as it may not be understood that the
decision in Pramjeet Singh Patheja (supra) conveys that
it is not a decree for all purposes and the principles under
the Code while an appeal is preferred is not applicable."
"14 In Pandey and Co. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State
of Bihar and Anr., AIR 2007 SC 465, it has been held
that a forum of an appellate court must be determined
with reference to the definition thereof contained in the
1996 Act. The aforesaid decision further reinforces the
conclusion that Order XLI Rule 5 in principle is
1 (2015) 5 SCC 267
ssm 21 nmal1861.16.sxw
applicable to an appeal preferred before the High Court,
for there is no provision in the Act prohibiting the
appellate court not to take recourse to the underlying
principles of the Code of Civil Procedure as long as they
are in consonance with the spirit and principles engrafted
under the Act."
"18. ..........
A bare reading of the two provisions referred to hereinabove,
shows a discretion having been conferred on the appellate
court to direct either deposit of the amount disputed in the
appeal or to permit such security in respect thereof being
furnished as the appellate court may think fit. Needless to say
that the discretion is to be exercised judicially and not
arbitrarily depending on the facts and circumstances of a
given case. .............."
23 Section 36 of the Arbitration Act and/or provisions of
Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC, itself provide and permit the Court to
pass an appropriate conditional order, after considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the nature of disputes so raised. The
Court may grant conditional or unconditional stay of execution of the
Award/Judgment. This is in the background that the parties have
proceeded to resolve their dispute of the year 2001/2002 through the
Arbitrator. Now, as re-confirmed by the Court under Section 34, in the
year 2014, as if the cause of action was of recent origin. The grounds
so raised and the submissions so made by the Appellant, based upon
the averments and the documents on record, and as the case is made
ssm 22 nmal1861.16.sxw
out as recorded above, we are inclined to grant the Motion to stay the
effect and operation of the award confirmed by the impugned
Judgment dated 7 January 2016, but on condition to deposit the
amount of equivalent to the market value of shares as recorded in the
order of Appellate Bench-BSE dated 10 January 2003, at
Rs.26,99,232/- with interest of Rs.33,803/- with future interest @ 12
p.m. on Rs.4,75,328/-, as it was calculated as monetary equivalent of
10500 ARBL shares, which we prima facie find could have been the
claim of the Respondent. The issue of bonus shares and its valuation
will be considered at the time of final hearing. As the different
amount charts are placed on record, at this stage, without prejudice to
the rights and contention of both the parties, we are inclined to direct
the Appellant to deposit a lumpsum amount of Rs.70,00,000/-
(Rupees Seventy Lacs only). We are taking this basis for monetary
deposit and as an interim arrangement, pending the final Appeal. It is
made clear that, we are not restoring order dated 10 January 2013,
but to arrive at an amount to be deposited as condition for stay, we
are referring to it.
24 In the result, following order:-
ssm 23 nmal1861.16.sxw
ORDER
a) Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a), which reads thus:-
"(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of
Appeal (L) No. 235 of 2016, the stay, effect and
operation of the impugned Award dated 30th
September 2014 as confirmed by order dated 7 th
January, 2016 be stayed."
however, on condition that the Applicant/Appellant
depositing a lumpsum amount of Rs.70,00,000/-
(Rupees Seventy Lacs only) in this Court, within four
weeks from today.
b) The Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court
Bombay to invest the said amount in a fixed deposit
in a Nationalized Bank, initially for a period of six
months and further renew from time to time for the
same period. The fixed deposit would be subject to
the further orders passed in the Appeal.
c) All points are kept open.
d) Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly.
e) There shall be no order as to costs.
(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
