Prudent Broking Services Private Limited v. Poonam Maheshwari

1. The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.

JUDGMENT

2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the Arbitral Award dated 12th April 2019 and the order dated 21st May 2020 passed by the District Judge whereby the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) by the appellant was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned District Judge did not consider the evidence on record and failed to note that payments of brokerages were paid on several occasions by the respondent in accordance with appellant’s interpretation of the brokerage tariff sheet. He emphasises that the District Judge erroneously interpreted the brokerage 2021:DHC:835-DB tariff sheet without appreciating the entire transaction, the contract as well as the conduct of the parties. He submits that the District Court ought to have applied the principle that once the parties have acted in a particular manner under a contract, the same should be taken to be the ‘accepted understanding’ of the contract.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 37 of the Act is limited and more so, when the final award and the order of the learned District Judge have given concurrent findings of facts and have interpreted the contract in an identical manner.

5. However, upon insistence of learned counsel for appellant, we have perused the ‘brokerage tariff sheet’ which is a part of account opening form. The same reveals that in respect of currency derivatives, brokerage charges at the rate of 10 per lot are applicable. The said brokerage sheet cannot be interpreted to mean that brokerage charges at the rate of Rs.10/- was payable, as in the previous columns of the tariff sheet, rates had been shown in the denomination of paise.

6. The learned District Judge has correctly observed that the appellant has drawn the tariff sheet in a manner, that is to say the least, confusing to the client and by no stretch of imagination, can it be taken as denoting Rs.10/- per lot in respect of currency derivatives.

7. This Court is further in agreement with the finding of the learned District Judge that even though some transactions were carried out and brokerage charges were paid by the respondent at the rate of Rs.10/- per lot, yet it seems plausible that since those transactions involved such meager amounts, respondent did not care to check the details and objections were not raised.

8. Consequently, this Court sees no ground to interfere with the unanimous findings of the learned District Judge and the learned Arbitrator that this was ‘natural and probable conduct’ and it cannot be taken as evidence that the respondent had knowledge of brokerage being charged at the rate of Rs.10/- per lot.

9. Accordingly, the present appeal along with pending applications is dismissed.

10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J ASHA MENON, J MARCH 04, 2021 KA