Full Text
FAO 526/2011& CM 22036/2011(stay)
17.02.2014 INDIABULLS SECURITIES LTD. ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Naveen Chawla, Ms. Solani Jaitley, Ms. Meha Jain, Mr. Bhaskar Subramanan, Advocates
Through Proxy counsel for respondent No. 1 (name not given).
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This matter was passed over once on the request of respondent no. 1. Again when the matter is called out after a pass over only a proxy counsel appears on behalf of respondent no. 1 and says that one of the counsels representing the respondent no.1 is not well. In my opinion, if one of the 2014:DHC:887 counsels for respondent no.1 is not available, the other counsel should have come.
2. This appeal impugns the judgment dated 25.8.2011 by which the court below dismissed the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 awarding damages/compensations to the respondent no. 1 herein.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant presses only one point that taking the appellant is guilty, however, an entitlement in law is only compensation for loss suffered which has to be proved and quantum of loss is not proved before the arbitrator. It is argued that in the present case for the loss which is allegedly suffered by respondent no. 1, no evidence whatsoever, much less any documentary evidence, was filed before the arbitrator to come to the conclusion that the loss suffered by respondent no. 1 is a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- for being claimed and awarded. I may state that it is settled law that losses once are claimed to have been caused, they have to be proved, before the monetary figure of loss as claimed is awarded. Since, in the present case, absolutely no evidence whatsoever including of the differences in prices causing loss on account of sale of shares to the respondent no. 1 was led in the arbitration proceedings, the impugned Award is illegal and hit by Section 73 of the Contract Act,
1872. An Award which is against law is hit by Section 25(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the arbitrator specifically limited only for the purpose of allowing the parties to lead evidence with respect to the quantum of loss caused to the respondent no. 1. Parties in terms of this judgment will now approach the concerned department of the National Stock Exchange dealing with the arbitration so that the matter may be referred to the same arbitrator who passed the Award dated 12.4.2010 or to other arbitrator if the arbitrator Sh. Vijai N. Mathur, who passed the Award dated 12.4.2010 is not available. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 17, 2014 godara