Rajinder Kumar Gupta vs Escorts Securities Ltd.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3180 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                     Date of Reserve: August 10, 2009
                                                        Date of Order: August 13, 2009
+OMP 399/2005
%                                                            13.08.2009
    Rajinder Kumar Gupta                              ...Petitioner
    Through: Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate with petitioner-in-person

       Versus

       Escorts Securities Ltd.                                           ...Respondent
       Through: Mr. Ajay Talesara, Advocate

       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


       JUDGMENT

1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996 ("the Act", for short), the petitioner has assailed an award dated 1st

August 2005 passed by the learned arbitral tribunal consisting of three

members. The arbitral tribunal held that the claim of applicant was barred by

limitation and the invocation of arbitration clause itself was beyond the period

of six months, as prescribed under the Rules of National Stock Exchange.

2. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had a dispute with

respondent No.1 regarding balance due amount. The letter dated 11th August

2000 was written by respondent no.1 showing debit balance of

Rs.1,63,70,518.19 in the account of petitioner. The petitioner had mortgaged

some of his property with the respondent and the respondent sold the

property and adjusted the sale amount and wrote another letter dated 6th

September 2000 showing reduced debit balance of Rs.76,20,419.15. The

petitioner replied to the respondent disputing the debit balance on 27th

OMP 399/2005 Rajinder Kr. Gupta v. Escorts Securities Ltd. Page 1 Of 2 September 2000 itself. It is clear that the dispute between the parties arose

in September 2000. Respondent invoked arbitration clause under the byelaws

of National Stock Exchange on 31st August 2003 by sending an application to

Mumbai Office. The arbitral tribunal observed that in view of Chapter IX

(Arbitration) of Byelaws of National Stock Exchange, the limitation period for

reference of claims and differences or disputes was six months. Since no

dispute between the parties was referred within six months, the reference of

dispute was barred by time. The leaned tribunal also went on to observe that

the claim of the petitioner was even otherwise barred by limitation when the

reference was made to the arbitral tribunal.

3. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the period of limitation for

invocation of arbitration clause was six months. He, however, stated that

respondent no.1 started another arbitration through a private arbitrator and

the petitioner, therefore, could not approach the arbitral tribunal in terms of

Byelaws of National Stock Exchange. This plea of petitioner must fail because

it is the petitioner's own case that the petitioner did not submit to the

jurisdiction of the private arbitrator and objected to his jurisdiction and

stopped attending the arbitration proceedings. In view of this conduct of

petitioner, it cannot be said that the period of limitation could stop running in

this case. The arbitral tribunal, therefore, rightly observed that the reference

itself was barred by limitation and the claim of petitioner was also barred by

time. I find no infirmity in the award passed by learned arbitral tribunal. This

objection petition is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.

August 13, 2009                                           SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




OMP 399/2005   Rajinder Kr. Gupta v. Escorts Securities Ltd.            Page 2 Of 2