HM Journal

M/S Smart Commodity Broker Pvt. vs. Beant Singh C.M appl. No. 34782/2017

Brief fact of the case:

 In this the respondent opened a trading broker with respect of  MCX exchange the account number was MTC-22 and he said to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,10,000 a date between 7.06.2007 to 5.07.2007. The case of the respondent was that, appellant did uncertified trading in his account and it absolutely was enlightened to the respondent by the appellant in April 2008 that the respondent invested stood decreased to Rs. 49,000 and afterwards to a 0 balance. The appellant has not pre supposed to have closed the respondents account with none authority thereafter. The respondent asked for the alleged recorded instructions or trading slips or etc. showing that respondent had certified. But the transaction wasn’t able to provide the identical. Therefore, instance the intervention proceeding in the terms of Para 15 to10 of the rule of the multi commodities market of India limited and which was referred for intervention on 19.03.2012.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The appellant contested that the intervention proceeding and pleaded that the trades were carried out in the account of the respondent and all the contract notes and therefore, the details of the transaction were sent into the email I’d to the respondent address. The intervention were get going by barred restraint because as per Para 15.11 provisionally the amount of the limitation for reference to intervention was six months from the date of the lost transaction and which had become one year by amendment by – law 15.11 with effect from 2.04.2011, but the current arbitration was instance by the respondent only on19.03.2012. I.e. over one year, the last transaction on 31.03.2010. The intervention proceedings and to be dismissed as barred by time.

Contentions of the respondent:

The respondent denied having created having created this email id. It had been observed that the said email id contained the client code of the applicant and therefore it would not stand to reason as to how the client would know his id allocation at the time of filling up of the from or create an email id at that point  of your time. This therefore pointed to the actual fact that the said email id was created subsequently and filled up by the petitioner’s agent. The log in respect of the email was also appraised by the ld. Arbitrator who deserved that the same could not be relied upon as it did not record essential feature like the time or the id address of the system. It absolutely was manually created and was not automated generation. Therefore the log of contract notes was nothing in need of fabrication.

Principle laid down:

The counsel for the appellant again argued that the claim petition was barred by limitation however, section 28 of the Indian contract Act, 1872 stood amended by Act 1 of 1997 with effect from 8.1.1997 where by any contract by which reduce the party of limitation as provided under the law, such contracts are cannot effect of extinguishing the parties right to approach proper court within the statutory period. In section 28 of the Indian contract Act held that examining the same period of limitation provided would be hit and other reason.

Judgment:

The first appeal was filed by under section 37 of the intervention and conciliation act, 1996. The court of the judgment below dated 17.09.2013 by objection was filed by the appellant under section 34 of the act were disperse. By the dispute awarded date 24.08.2012 the intervention has awarded Rs. 3, 70,493 along with interest 9% at per annum in the commendation of the respondent and against the appellant. Both the objection raised by the petitioner that is the arbitrator decision with the respect of the limitation as well as on merits subjects that cannot be matter .under section 34 of the intervention and conciliation Act. The arbitrator duly applied his mind and given his decision in the respect of the evidence on record as well as petitioners objections of the complaint being time barred.     

Court Name: Delhi High Court

Judgment Name: M/S Smart Commodity Broker Pvt. vs. Beant Singh C.M appl. No. 34782/2017

Judgment Date: 21st. September.2017

Bench: Valmiki J. Mehta

 Reference:

http:/indiankanoon.org/doc/88362205

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/59c65774ce686e7487030406

Judgment- Contracts and Agreements

M/S Smart Commodity Broker Pvt. vs. Beant Singh

Edited By: SAKSHI VISHWAKARMA

College Name: Ajeenkya D.Y Patil University

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.