IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi FMA/3432/2015 RATNA BOSE REPRESENTED BY HER HUSBAND AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PRIYA SANKAR BOSE VS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR, DILIP KUMAR DAS & ANR For the Appellants : Mr. Chittapriay Ghosh, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Saha, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anirban Das, Advocate Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Ms. Tutul Das, Advocate Mr. Ranjit Singh, Advocate Mr. Amar Singh, Advocate Mr. Krishnaditya Chakraborty, Advocate Heard & Judgment on: July 14, 2026 Debangsu Basak, J. 1. Appeal is under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Appeal is directed against order dated January 22, 2015 passed in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2014 by the Court of the 8th Additional District Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas. FMA/3432/2015 2 3. By the impugned order, learned Judge dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellant. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. He submits that, the appellant opened an account with the respondent No. 2. Disputes and differences arose between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 with regard to the dealings and transactions of the respondent No.2 on account of the appellant in the National Stock exchange. Such disputes and differences were referred to arbitration. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the constitution of the arbitral tribunal was incorrect. He contends that, the persons representing the respondent No. 2 in the arbitration, was the Officer-in-Charge of the Arbitration Committee of the National Stock Exchange. Therefore, the composition of the arbitral Tribunal and in fact the entire conduct of the arbitration stood vitiated. 6. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that, the appellant was denied an opportunity to be represented by an advocate in the arbitration. He points out that, the respondent No. 2 was being represented by the Manager, Legal who possessed a degree of law. 7. Respondent No. 2 is represented. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the impugned order is well-reasoned. Reliance is placed by the respondent No. 2 on 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3632 [Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. Sanman Rice Mills and Ors.] and (2026) 3 SCC 186 [Jan De Nul Dredging India Private Limited vs. Tuticorin Port Trust] FMA/3432/2015 3 in support of the contention as to the scope and ambit an inquiry under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act of 1996. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that, the learned Judge considered all aspects of the matter. The impugned order is not perverse. There is no patent illegality of the award passed by the Arbitrator. Consequently, no interference is called for. 9. We find from the records that, the appellant, opened an account with the respondent No. 2 in order to transact in the National Stock Exchange. 10. Disputes and differences arose between the appellant and the respondent No.2 with regard to such transactions at the National Stock Exchange. Appellant lodged a complaint with the National Stock Exchange. An Arbitrator was appointed in terms of the Regulations governing such transactions. Arbitrator entered into reference. 11. From the materials made available on records we find that, the appellant submitted a statement of claim before the Arbitrator. Essentially, in such statement of claim appellant alleged that hard copy of the contract notes were not given to her. Her account was abruptly transferred from Gariahat to Bombay, exposure limit was reduced and that the sale off was done when the market was down. 12. In response to a query of the Court, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the value of the damages sought for by the appellant is about Rs. 50,000/-. 13. There is no material on record to substantiate the contention that, the person who represented the respondent No. 2 in the arbitration, was instrumental in appointing the Arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes between the parties. In absence of such FMA/3432/2015 4 evidence, it would be improper to arrive at a definite finding as to biasness so far as the Arbitrator is concerned. 14. The contention that, the appellant was denied an opportunity to be represented by an advocate, cannot be accepted. Rules Regulations and bye-laws governing the transaction do not permit an advocate to represent a complainant. 15. On merits, we do not find that there is any patent illegality in the award for the Court under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 to intervene. 16. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (supra) and Jan De Nul Dredging India Private Limited (supra) are of the view that, exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 is narrow. Court exercising powers under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 is to evaluate as to whether or not, the Court under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 applied the correct parameters in well examining the award impugned before it. 17. As noted above, the appellant did not establish that the award suffers from any patent illegality which requires interference. 18. Impugned order cannot be classified as perverse. 19. In such circumstances, we find no ground in the present appeal. 20. FMA/3432/2015 is therefore dismissed without any order as to costs. (Debangsu Basak, J.) 21. I agree (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) Dd DEBABRATA DAS Digitally signed by DEBABRATA DAS Date: 2026.07.15 17:51:01 +05'30'