Umesh Chandra Dash vs M/s Sharekhan Limited

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was an investor with M/s Sharekhan Limited which deals with share stock in the stock market and well known as share-broker headquartered at Mumbai with all its branches in different cities. The present Appellant used to transact his share as an online client. The online share trading is done with the help of software provided by the company named “Trade Tiger”. After logging in the software, it displays the variety of information. The said company provides the holding status as well as the holding value of the shares. It also provides trading pattern undertaken in the day. The Appellant was gaining substantially. However, the capital base was eroding very fast in spite of pumping a lot of money. Later, the present Appellant found that the brokerage rate has been increased high sometimes in 2012 to 150 per cent and the said fact was not intimated to the Appellant. 4. He further submits that the software has also given wrong information to the Appellant showing share holdings at a lower price which triggered the present Appellant as his share on a slight rise in the price anticipating some windfall gain. So, this kind of incongruity in the market share on the Sharekhan platform met the Appellant lose huge amount of money which has been charged with huge brokerage charges.

Being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Investor Grievance Redressal Panel (IGRP) vide complaint No.1612221073301689 dated 23rd December, 2016 claiming revised claim of Rs.27,35,000/- on the ground that the losses incurred due to sale of holding shown at wrong rates is Rs.25.00 lacs and the excess brokerage charged during 2012-2016 is Rs.2,34,000/-. The IGRP vide order dated 7th February, 2017 admitted the excess brokerage charge of Rs.2,35,000/- in favour of the Appellant.

Being aggrieved by the said order of the IGRP, the Appellant further approached the Arbitral Tribunal, Kolkata which is functioning on the aegis of Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE) in A.M. No. CM/K-0013/2017. Said Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 28th August, 2017 allowed the Arbitration Application of the Appellant in part directing the Respondent to compensate the Appellant to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,35,000/- as granted by the IGRP on account of irregular charge of brokerage.

However, during the course of hearing in A.M. No. CM/K-0013/2017 before the Arbitral Tribunal, Kolkata, the Respondent had blocked the trading account of the Appellant on 15.06.2017 without any prior notice thereby causing further financial loss to the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant had filed A.M. No.CM/BH-0001/2018 before the Sole Arbitrator, NSE, Bhubaneswar. The Sole Arbitrator, NSE, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 04.05.2018 directed the Respondent to unlock the trading account of the Appellant and to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation along with interest and charges of Rs.37,746.80.

Thereafter, the Respondent challenged the award dated 28th August, 2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, Kolkata in A.M. No.CM/K-0013/2017. The Arbitral Tribunal, Kolkata vide order dated 23rd January, 2018 rejected the Appeal filed by the present Respondent. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a review application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for review of the order dated 23rd January, 2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, Kolkata claiming legal expenses to the extent of Rs.30,000/-, mental harassment to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and overheads to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. The Appellant had also filed an application on 22.06.2018 for review of the award dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, NSE, Bhubaneswar which was dismissed confirming the award.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed Arbitration Matter (Appeal) No.CM/BH-0001/2018 challenging the award dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, NSE, Bhubaneswar. The Sole Arbitrator, NSE, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 14.12.2018 disposed of the same directing the Respondent to pay an amount of 25,000/- to the Appellant as compensation to cover the adverse consequences being inconvenience, mental agony and harassment undergone by him due to the wrongful acts and omissions of the Respondent.

Then, the Respondent challenged the order dated 23rd January, 2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, Kolkata in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Arbitration Petition No.856 of 2018 and the said High Court vide order dated 12th April, 2018 had been pleased to stay the order dated 23rd January, 2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, Kolkata in A.M. No.CM/K-0013/2017. Later, vide order dated 22nd February, 2021, the Arbitration Petition No.856 of 2018 filed by the Respondent was dismissed vacating the stay granted earlier. The Respondent, thereafter, filed Appeal (L) No.8595 of 2021 before the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the order dated 22nd February, 2021. The learned Division Bench vide order dated 6th September, 2022 restored the case to file and remanded the matter to the learned Single Bench for hearing afresh on merits. In the said order, learned Division Bench had also granted liberty to both the Parties to approach the learned Single Judge.

In such view of the matter, the Appellant has filed this ARBA before this Court.

Accordingly, Issue notice to Respondent through Registered Post with A.D./Speed Post. Postal requisites shall be filed within seven working days hence.

List this matter on 28th August, 2023.

. ………………………………