Before Shri K S Dhingra, Sole Arbitrator Arbitration Matter No D-053/2010 In the matter of Arbitration under the Bye-laws and

Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd Ashok Kumar Goel (Constituent) H No. 1286/5, Pech Paras Ram, Old Anaj Mandi, Rohtak -124001 Vs Bharat Rasayan Finance Ltd (Trading Member) Delhi Chamber Building, Delhi Gate, New Delhi -110002

Applicant

Respondent

ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 The applicant, Ashok Kumar Goel has made the Arbitration Application, received by the Exchange on 18.5.2010, to seek adjudication of his claim for Rs. 2,05,795.95 against Bharat Rasayan Finance Ltd, the respondent, a trading member of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as Exchange), through arbitration under the Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange. Facts 2. The facts in this case lie within narrow compass. The applicant opened a trading account with the respondent and traded in securities through the respondent. As on 11.2.2008, his account showed a credit balance of Rs. 7,05,795.95. On 14.2.2008, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was debited to the applicants account for credit to the account of Rakesh K Goel (HUF). Thereafter, another sum of Rs. 2,05,795.95 was debited on 31.3.2008. The purpose of this debit was to transfer funds to the account of Balaji Securities, also a constituent of the respondent, leaving nil balance in the account of the applicant. 3. The grievance of the applicant is that the transfer of funds from his account to that of Balaji Securities was unauthorized and unlawful as he did not give any authorisation for transfer of funds to the account Balaji Securities. Accordingly, the applicant has claimed the amount of Rs. 2,05,795.95. Defence

4. The respondent in its reply has disputed the claim of the applicant. According to the respondent, the applicant by his letter dated 6.12.2007, authorized the respondent to transfer the credit balance from his account to other family/group accounts, including the account of Balaji Securities. It is the case of the respondent that funds were transferred from the applicants account to the account of Balaji Securities pursuant to this authorisation dated 6.12.2007, the copy of which has been filed along with the reply. The respondent has pointed out that the applicants claim is barred by limitation by virtue of Bye-law (3) of Chapter XI of the Bye-laws of the Exchange. It has been stated that the alleged dispute arose on 31.3.2008 when the amount claimed was debited to the applicants account. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a complaint dated 12.11.2008 before the Investor Services Cell of the Exchange. The complaint was disposed of on 16.1.2009, within about two months. After excluding the time taken by the Investor Services Cell in its efforts to resolve the dispute, the claim has been preferred after 23 months, much after six months limitation period specified under Bye-law (3) ibid. Proceedings 5, Initial hearing of the matter was held on 23.8.2010. The applicant did not attend hearing. Rather a Fax message was received on his behalf requesting for adjournment and fixing the matter after two weeks. During the course of hearing reply was filed by the respondent. Considering the applicants request for adjournment, hearing was adjourned to 15.9.2010. The applicant was allowed time up to 10.9.2010 for filing of rejoinder. However, rejoinder has not been filed. On 15.9.2010 a telephonic message was received in the Exchange on behalf of the applicant informing that Fax message was sent to seek adjournment. The Exchange on verification did not find that such Fax message was received. In the absence of the applicant the matter was reserved for award after hearing the representative of the respondent who pursuant to the direction given on 23.8.2010 also produced the original record pertaining to the authorisation dated 6.12.2007. Analysis and Award 6. The applicant who is the resident of the nearby place, Rohtak, did not attend hearing on two successive occasions. It is not really material whether or not request for adjournment has been received. The applicant has not even filed the rejoinder. In the facts of the case it appears that the applicant is not interested in pursuing the claim but intends to somehow prolong the proceedings. The applicants claim is dismissed for non-prosecution and in default. . Made and signed on this 22nd day of September 2010 at New Delhi in three counterparts.

K. S. Dhingra Sole Arbitrator