Judgment : The Petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 28 April 2009, passed by the Arbitrator in the matter of Arbitration under Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, “NSEIL”). 2. The operative order of the award is as under:- “AWARD (a) Reference stands dismissed. (b) Counter Claim stands dismissed. (c) Each party to bear their own costs; (d) We authorize the National Stock Exchange of India Limited, to file the Original Award and forward a copy of the Award to the parties” 3. The basic events are as under:- In the month of April 2007, the Respondent traded on behalf of the Petitioner through its branch office at Prabhadevi, Mumbai. It is the case of the Petitioner that he always had sufficient margin money to enable the Respondent to trade in future and option segment of NSC and at no point of time the Petitioner was in default in meeting margin requirement in trading. 4. From 25 May 2007 to 3 April 2008, the Petitioner made payment of Rs.25,91,000/-as per details set out in statement of claim. The Petitioner had also issued two advance cheques, one for Rs.4,00,000/-dated 31 January 2008 and another for Rs.5,00,000/-dated 5 February 2008. 5. On 31 January 2008, at about 11.00 a.m. the Respondent's representative from Prabhadevi Branch informed the Petitioner that the Respondent's office at Nariman Point Mumbai has squared off the Petitioner's position as per the instructions received from the Central Office of the Respondent from Bangalore. Though the Petitioner issued two cheques in advance, he was not allowed to revive his position therefore the Petitioner stopped the payment of two cheques. The contract note dated 31 January 2008, the Respondent had not stated the order time, trade time. Due to illegal and unilateral square off by the Respondent in respect of certain scrips the Petitioner suffered loss of Rs.11,05,000/-. 6. On 2 May 2008, a meeting was held with the Respondent's representative wherein it was recorded by the Respondent that Global report required for financial year 2007-08 will be submitted to sort out the issue. 7. Due to illegal and unilateral square off by the Respondent in respect of certain scrips the Petitioner suffered loss of Rs.11,05,000/-. 6. On 2 May 2008, a meeting was held with the Respondent's representative wherein it was recorded by the Respondent that Global report required for financial year 2007-08 will be submitted to sort out the issue. 7. On 14 June 2008, the Petitioner vide his letter called upon the Respondent to make good loss of Rs.32,56,000/-, which amount the Respondent was liable to pay, being loss due to illegal square off, gain in account from September 2007 to 10 January 2008 and difference between payment of margin money from 25 May 2007 to 3 April 2008. On account of the same the Petitioner had stopped the payment of cheques as the Respondent was under obligation to return the said cheques. 8. On 29 July 2008, the Petitioner filed his statement of claim with NSEIL and also demanded interest @ 18% p.a. from 29 July 2008 till realization and requested for hearing before the Panel of Arbitrator. 9. Between 21 January 2009 to 20 March 2009, two meetings were held before the Panel of Arbitrators. 10. On 2 May 2009, the Petitioner received award dated 28 April 2009 thereby rejecting the reference. Hence the Petition. 11. The first and foremost issue in the present matter is the letter dated 22nd January, 2009 issued by the NSEIL based upon the directions issued by the Arbitral Tribunal which is as under: “The Panel of Arbitrators Justice K. K. Baam (Retd.), Justice R. J. Kochar (Retd.) & Mr. P. B. Nimbalkar has directed as under:-“Heard arguments advanced on behalf of Applicants & Respondents. Respondent states that the rejoinder was received in 5 pm on 20-Jan-09 & that they want to file a sur-rejoinder, which will be filed by them within a month & copy will be served on Applicant. NSC is directed to ascertain the transaction as under the Order no.-2008013110000067 Order no.-2008013110000143 Order no.-2008013110000141 Order no.-2008013110000163 as according to Respondent, the transaction is closed by NSE, not at the instance of the Respondent, not at the instance of Respondent. The particulars are to be furnished to Arbitral Tribunal, within a fortnight. 12. Contract note dated 31st January, 2008, which is part of record and referred and relied upon by the parties also shows the missing order time. The particulars are to be furnished to Arbitral Tribunal, within a fortnight. 12. Contract note dated 31st January, 2008, which is part of record and referred and relied upon by the parties also shows the missing order time. In the column of the charge referred to these four entries in the claim of order time, there is no time mentioned though there is mention about trade time. This was referring to the contract specification of 31st January, 2008, in question. The contention, therefore, that the transactions were entered into without instructions and/or without authority, just cannot be overlooked unless there is clear finding given with regard to these transactions. The learned Arbitrator, therefore, rightly directed to ascertain the transactions. 13. Admittedly, there is no reference made whatsoever with regard to these transactions as directed to ascertain by the NSEIL in the order. There is also nothing on record to show whether any details as directed were placed on record. In my view, this direction is relevant to decide the issue finally, in view of the specific claim and the averments so raised and as admittedly not considered and/or decided while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, this in my view, affects the rights of the Petitioner. Normally, there is no reason to interfere with the order so passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. However, if the documents and in the present case even the directions issued by the Arbitral Tribunal if not filed and/or dealt with these four transactions referring to the relevant date in question, if taken note, the figure so arrived at on either side, would definitely change. Therefore, this would also change the assessment of the figure and the conclusion so arrived at with regard to the short fall and/or major issue. If there is material to justify non mentioning of the order time and these documents basically belong to the Respondents, and as burden is also lies upon them to justify the missing order time, in my view, therefore, this is nothing but error on the face of the record. Equal opportunity required to be given to both the parties. This lacuna certainly unless decided finally, by giving both the parties opportunity to dealt with the same, the other reasoning so given while rejecting the Petitioner's claim, cannot be stated to be based on material and/or documents on record. 14. Equal opportunity required to be given to both the parties. This lacuna certainly unless decided finally, by giving both the parties opportunity to dealt with the same, the other reasoning so given while rejecting the Petitioner's claim, cannot be stated to be based on material and/or documents on record. 14. The Petitioner has raised the specific ground in the Petition and also made submissions accordingly. There is no justification whatsoever available on record with regard to the missing of the order time as recorded and whether there is any report and/or justification given by the authority as directed. Therefore, no full opportunity was given to the Petitioner to submit his case/claim against the Respondent. 15. Therefore, in my view, the Award on the sole ground needs to be interfered with. The Award is, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside. 16. In the result following order: 1. The impugned award is quashed and set aside on all counts. 2. However, the learned Arbitral Tribunal to rehear the matter by giving opportunity to both the parties and to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible. 3. The parties to take steps accordingly. 4 All points are kept open.