Narendra & Co vs Religare Commodities Ltd & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 5437 Del

*               HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          FAO No.341/2011

                                         Date of Decision : 25.11.2013

NARENDRA & CO                                        ..... Appellant

                    Through:       Mr. R.M. Tatia, Advocate.

                          versus

RELIGARE COMMODITIES LTD & ANR                       ..... Respondents

                    Through:       Mr. Rohit Puri, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. It has been contended that the learned arbitrator as well as the

learned trial court while considering the objections of the appellant has

failed to take into account the fact that the appellant was entitled to a sum

of Rs. 1,44,926.92 by way of refund of VAT while as the appellant has

been directed to be paid by the arbitrator only a sum of Rs.10,958.40 on

account of the same. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant

sought to draw the attention of the court to Annexure P-2 which is the

contract note issued by the Religare Commodities Limited. The learned

counsel has also drawn the attention of this court to the endorsements

made at the bottom of the said contract note that the contract is subject to

the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations and usages of National Commodity

& Derivatives Exchange Limited, Mumbai as enforced from time to time.

On the basis of this, the learned counsel has sought to urge that the

appellant was entitled to a higher amount of refund of VAT amounting to

Rs.1,44,926.92/-. This fact has been refuted by the learned counsel for the

respondent who has contended that the appellant is trying to enter into the

question of re-appreciation of evidence which has been not only rejected

by the trial court but also cannot be entertained by this court in exercise

of powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

while considering the appeal.

3. I have considered the rival contentions and find myself in

agreement with the contention urged by the learned counsel for the

respondent that the appellant is trying to enter into an arena of re-

appreciation of evidence recorded before the learned arbitrator with

regard to the refund of VAT. This cannot be permitted to be done in an

appeal by this court. The trial court has noted the fact that if at all there

was an error with regard to the computation of VAT as was alternatively

sought to be urged, the said arithmetic error with regard to the

computation could be corrected by the arbitrator under Section 33 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant do not fall in any of the sub-clauses as

envisaged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Accordingly, the appeal filed against the impugned judgment is totally

misconceived and the same is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

NOVEMBER 25, 2013 dm