Learn How to Trade the Market in 5 Steps
5 stars based on
On 20 Septemberan Award was passed by the panel of Arbitrators Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the claim of the Respondent. On 29 Septemberthe Respondent received Award dated 20 September On 14 Octoberthe Respondent filed way 2 wealth online trading application under Section 33 of the Act of before the Arbitral Tribunal seeking review of Award dated 20 September On 10 November Order was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the Respondent's Application under Section 33 of the Act ofholding that the Arbitral Tribunal had no powers to review the matter on merits.
On 20 Decemberthe Respondent filed another Application under Section 33 4 of the Act of before the Arbitral Tribunal seeking additional award.
On 24 February the Appellants filed a reply opposing the Appeal and raised a preliminary objection that the Appeal was barred by law of limitation. On 28 February the Respondent received the said reply of the Petitioner opposing the Appeal.
On 19 March the Respondent filed an Application for condonation of delay in filing of this Appeal. On 2 April hearing was fixed before the Appellate Authority. On 10 April the Respondent filed further submissions as during the way 2 wealth online trading on 2 Aprilthe Appellate Authority wanted further details on the Application preferred by the Respondent under Section 33 of the Act of way 2 wealth online trading On 20 April again hearing was fixed before the Appellate Authority.
On 20 April vide a hand written Application, the Respondent sets out reasons for delay and requested for an opportunity to be heard by the Appellate Authority. On 21 April the Respondent made further Application to the Tribunal to consider the matter for condoning delay and on merits. On 4 Juneimpugned order was passed without condoning the delay and on 12 September impugned order and judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge and set aside the said order.
The issue of condonation of delay itself delayed the arbitration proceeding in question. Transport - 3 Mh. There are separate arbitration mechanism available at Stock Exchanges for Arbitration of Disputes Claims, Complaints, differences etc.
The arbitration mechanism and the Regulations issued by Circular No. The Limitation Act There are other judgments also in this regard. Considering the facts and circumstances, therefore, the learned Judge has referred the judgment in Geojit Financial Services Ltd v. Kritika Nagpal Appeal No. A Division Bench Dr. Miral Kanaksinh Thakore1 this Court Coram: Present case is covered by the Judgment, as majority of facts are similar.
In "Geojit" Supra award on merit was set aside and matter was remanded for re-consideration on all issues.
Therefore, both the claim and the counter claim as interlinked were directed to be decided. The Division Bench, however, did not accept the remand order. The Appeal was allowed against the Section 34 Judgment and remand order. In the present case, way 2 wealth online trading Appellate Bench did not decide the merit of the matter - Rejected the Appeal on ground of delay.
The facts are different so also the reason for sending back the matter for reconsideration. We are therefore, in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the decision of the Division Bench in "Geojit" is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
The order of Appellate Authority did not deal with specific provision of about Acts and it's principles. The direction to reconsider the issue of limitation and to take decision, therefore, distinguishes this case from "Geojit" Supra. The inquiry was about the power of Appellate Court to condone the delay.
This is precisely the reason where we are also inclined to maintain the order independently for the reason so recorded by the learned Judge as well as for above reasons. This communication definitely was after the impugned judgment passed by the learned Judge. The aspect way 2 wealth online trading remand, therefore, in the present way 2 wealth online trading and circumstances, as facts and circumstances of Geojit Financial Services supra are different.
The same Division Bench has concluded the issue about applicability of Limitation Actto such claim. This, therefore, is also required to be noted by the Appellate Tribunal, including the basic principle of condonation of delay in facts and circumstances of the case. As the learned Judge directed the Appellate Authority to decide the case on delay application in filing Appeal, and as no merit is decided, therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned Judgment.
The judgments so cited are of no assistance in view of distinguished way 2 wealth online trading distinct facts of present case. There is no perversity and no illegality. It is unacceptable to say that in these circumstances,provisions of Limitation Act shall not be applicable to Appellate forum. A two-tier arbitration mechanism has been created for resolving the disputes between the constituents and the trading members of the NSE. We cannot overlook the position that the provisions of the Limitation Act were admittedly applicable to the original proceedings which was clear from the circular dated 11 Forex indicators and signals dubai issued by SEBI in exercise of the powers under the Security and Exchange Board of India Actread with section 10 of the Securities Contracts Regulation Act We are therefore, of the clear opinion that the Appellate Authority in these circumstances, way 2 wealth online trading have power to condone delay of ten days as arising in the present case.
Any other conclusion wold render way 2 wealth online trading right of appeal otiose defeating substantive rights occurred to an aggrieved party. We are therefore, in complete agreement with the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge. There shall be no way 2 wealth online trading as to costs. Cites 22 docs - [ View All ]. Try out our Premium Member services: Free for one month and pay only if you like it.