APHC010687472011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 685/2011 Between: M/s.steel City Securities Limited ...APPELLANT AND R Jyothiramalinga Pandian Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO 2. T V P SAI VIHARI The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellant herein is a stock broker registered with the National Stock Exchange. The 1st respondent was his client. The 1st respondent had earlier stayed in Visakhapatnam on account of his employment in a bank. The 1st respondent, while he was staying in Visakhapatnam, had established an account with the appellant for the purposes of purchase and sale of securities. 2 In that process, the 1st respondent had acquired certain shares which were kept in the account maintained with the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent, after some time, had been transferred to Coimbatore. After his transfer, the 1st respondent sought the transfer of his shares, said to have been held by the appellant, to his account. At that stage, the appellant had informed the 1st respondent that no shares were available in the account of the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by this stand of the appellant, the 1st respondent had sought arbitration, and the same was conducted by the 2nd respondent, who is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 3. After considering the rival submissions and the material placed before him, the 2nd respondent-Arbitrator, by an award dated 11.03.2008, had directed a refund of the sum of Rs.5,57,337/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and the same to be paid by the appellant to the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by this award, dated 11.03.2008, the appellant approached the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section-34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short “the Arbitration Act”], by way of A.O.P.No.896 of 2008. This petition was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, by an Order dated 03.06.2010. Aggrieved by the said order dated 03.06.2010, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present C.M.A. 4. Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that though the Arbitrator as well as the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, had erred in rejecting exhibit R-8 which was the letter of 3 authorization given by the 1st respondent to the appellant. He would submit that this authorization letter permitted the appellant to sell the shares of the 1st respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that once such authorization has been given, the 1st respondent could not have claimed that there was no authorization for sale of the securities and that he is entitled to a refund of the value of the securities. 5. A perusal of the Judgment of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam would show that the 2nd respondent-Arbitrator had considered the material placed before him, including Ex.R-8, and the Arbitrator had come to the conclusion that Ex.R-8 cannot be accepted. The Principal District Judge also considered this issue and held that the view of the Learned Arbitrator, in rejecting Ex.R-8, cannot be faulted. 6. The scope of review of an award, under the Arbitration Act, is highly restricted. Section-34 of the Arbitration Act, stipulates the grounds on which an award can be looked into. The said grounds essentially stipulate that an award cannot be set aside unless the said award is opposed to public policy, capricious, beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, based on misconduct of the Arbitration or on the ground that the award is in direct violation of provisions of law. 7. In the present case, none of these conditions appear to have been attracted. The view taken by the Arbitrator as well as the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is a reasonable view which is neither capricious nor Arbitrary. 4 8. In the circumstances, nothing further survives in the present C.M.A and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. _______________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. BSM 5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO C.M.A.No.685 of 2011 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 22.04.2025 BSM