Delhi High Court
Sachin Bharadwaj vs Religare Securities Ltd. & Anr. on 22 October, 2013
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.10.2013
+ O.M.P. 254/2013
SACHIN BHARADWAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Amit Gupta & Mr Dinesh Kumar,
Advs.
versus
RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Rohit Puri, Adv. for R-1.
Mr Abhishek Anand, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. By virtue of the captioned petition, filed under Section 34 of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act), read with various
sections quoted in the petition, challenge is laid to the order dated
10.07.2012, passed by the arbitral tribunal (in short the tribunal).
2. To be noted, the impugned order came to be passed by the tribunal on
an application moved by the petitioner wherein, he sought a direction for
keeping the arbitration proceedings in abeyance on account of allegations of
fraud qua respondent no. 1, which was subject matter of a writ petition filed
in this court by a group of the investors. This writ petition was numbered as
WP(Crl.) 1589/2011.
3. It appears that respondent no. 1, which was the non-applicant before
the tribunal qua the application referred to above, joined the request of the
petitioner, to the extent that, in view of the allegation of fraud, the tribunal
need not proceed with the matter. The tribunal has adverted to these aspects
in paragraph 7 of the impugned order.
3.1 The tribunal was concerned with the fact that a copy of the said writ
petition was not supplied, therefore, it could not on its own examine as to
whether the allegations of fraud had substance; so as to enable it to come to
a conclusion as to whether arbitration was the appropriate mechanism for
adjudication of disputes between the parties before it.
3.2 The tribunal, having regard to the fact that the respondent was also of
the view that the proceedings should not continue before it, closed the
proceedings, giving liberty to the petitioner to either approach civil court or
make a fresh application for arbitration under the bye-laws and regulations
of National Stock Exchange; albeit in accordance with law.
3.3 It may be noted that, at that point in time, a petition, under Section 9
of the Act, being: OMP No. 216/2012, was pending adjudication in this
court. Therefore, the tribunal indicated in the impugned order that the
aforesaid liberty granted to approach the civil court or the tribunal will kick-
in after the petition under Section 9 of the Act was disposed of in terms of
the prayer made in that petition.
3.4 I am informed that prayer made in Section 9 petition was for
supplying the petitioner certain reports and information; the details of which
were set out in the said petition.
3.5 The said petition was disposed of by a short order, passed by this
court, on 24.07.2012. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek
appropriate remedies against the impugned order of the tribunal dated
10.07.2012; albeit in accordance with law. The court also indicated in the
very same order, that the relief sought for in Section 9 petition, could not be
granted.
4. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to
withdraw the petition and apply to the tribunal in terms of the direction
contained in paragraph 8 of the impugned order; albeit in accordance with
law.
5. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty as sought for by
the petitioner in terms of directions contained in the impugned order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
OCTOBER 22, 2013
kk
