Judgment : (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 25 September 2012 on a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A reference was made to arbitration, before an arbitral tribunal, constituted by the National Stock Exchange of India Limited. The Appellant was a constituent of the First Respondent. The First Respondent was carrying on transactions in shares on behalf of the Appellant. There was a debit balance of Rs.16,76,892/- at the foot of the account which the Appellant failed to pay despite a notice of demand dated 26 September 2009. The First Respondent submitted a reference to arbitration and lodged a statement of case on 20 December 2010. The arbitral tribunal allowed the claim together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 29 February 2008. 2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition under Section 34. In appeal, the only point which has been canvassed on behalf of the Appellant at the hearing is that the claim of the First Respondent was barred by limitation. Counsel submits that when the reference was made on 20 December 2010, the byelaws of the National Stock Exchange required a claim to be submitted within a period of six months and since the last transaction, as noted by the arbitrator, was undertaken on 28 February 2008, the claim was barred by limitation. 3. Now it needs to be noticed that on 11 August 2010, the Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI) issued a circular in exercise of its powers conferred by the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Section 10 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Clause 13 of the circular was to the following effect: “13. This Circular is issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992, read with Section 10 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 to protect the interests of the investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market and shall come into effect from September 1, 2010.” 4. Clause 5.1 of the circular states as follows: “5.1 The limitation period for filing an arbitration reference shall be governed by the law of limitation i.e. The Limitation Act, 1963.” 5. Clause 5.1 of the circular states as follows: “5.1 The limitation period for filing an arbitration reference shall be governed by the law of limitation i.e. The Limitation Act, 1963.” 5. Subsequently, on 9 February 2011, SEBI issued a further circular in exercise of its statutory powers. The relevant part of the circular states as follows: “This is in continuation of circular ref. No. CIR/MRD/DSA/24/2010 dated August 11, 2010, which inter alia prescribed that the limitation period for filing an arbitration reference shall be governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. In this regard upon consideration of various representations received by SEBI and pursuance to the discussions held with the representatives of stock exchanges, it has been decided that the limitation period, as modified to three years in terms of Limitation Act, 1963, shall be applicable to cover inter alia the following cases:- I. where three years have not yet elapsed and the parties have not filed for arbitration with the stock exchange, or II. where the arbitration application was filed but was rejected solely on the ground of delay in filing within the earlier limitation period of six months; and three years have not yet elapsed.” Clause 6 of the circular referred to the statutory basis for the circular in terms of the two legislations referred to earlier and provides that the circular shall come into effect immediately. 6. The arbitral tribunal had due regard to the terms of these circulars. The first circular dated 11 August 2010 stipulated that the period of limitation shall be governed by the Limitation Act, 1963 and that the circular would come into effect from 1 September 2010. The recognised stock exchanges were advised by clause 11 of the circular to make amendments to their byelaws, rules and regulations to implement the decision but, there can be no doubt about the fact that the circular which was issued inter alia under Section 11(1) of the SEBI Act, 1992 was binding on the stock exchanges. Section 11(1) provides as follows: “11. Functions of Board .-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market, by such measures as it thinks fit.” 7. Section 11(1) provides as follows: “11. Functions of Board .-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market, by such measures as it thinks fit.” 7. Similarly, Section 10 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 provides as follows :- “10 (1) The Securities and Exchange Board of India may, either on a request in writing received by it in this behalf from the governing body of a recognised stock exchange or on its own motion, if it is satisfied after consultation with the governing body of the stock exchange that it is necessary or expedient so to do and after recording its reasons for so doing, make bye-laws for all or any of the matters specified in section 9 or amend any bye-laws made by such stock exchange under that section. (2) Where in pursuance of this section any bye-laws have been made or amended, the byelaws so made or amended shall be published in the Gazette of India and also in the Official Gazette of the State in which the principal office of the recognised stock exchange is situate, and on the publication thereof in the Gazette of India, the bye-laws so made or amended shall have effect as if they had been made or amended by the recognised stock exchange concerned. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where the governing body of a recognised stock exchange objects to any bye-laws made or amended under this section by the Securities and Exchange Board of India on its own motion, it may, within two months of the publication thereof in the Gazette of India under sub-section (2), apply to the Securities and Exchange Board of India for revision thereof, and the Securities and Exchange Board of India may, after giving an opportunity to the governing body of the stock exchange to be heard in the matter, revise the bye-laws so made or amended, and where any bye-laws so made or amended are revised as a result of any action taken under this sub-section, the bye-laws so revised shall be published and shall become effective as provided in sub-section (2). (4) The making or the amendment or revision of any bye-laws under this section shall, in all cases, be subject to the condition of previous publication: Provided that if the Securities and Exchange Board of India is satisfied in any case that in the interest of the trade or in the public interest any bye-laws should be made, amended or revised immediately, it may, by order in writing specifying the reasons therefor, dispense with the condition of previous publication.” 8. The arbitral tribunal which is constituted by the National Stock Exchange was bound to give effect to the terms of the circulars. The claim in the present case was admittedly within a period of three years of the date of the last transaction. When the reference was filed on 20 December 2010, the first circular dated 11 August 2010 had come into force and was applicable. The second circular dated 9 February 2011 stipulates that the limitation of three years would be applicable inter alia to cover cases where, (i) three years had not yet elapsed and parties have not filed for arbitration, (ii) an arbitration application was filed but was rejected solely on the ground that there was a delay in filing within the earlier limitation of six months and three years had not yet elapsed. This circular of 9 February 2011 was in continuation of the earlier circular dated 11 August 2010. The circular came into effect immediately. The use of the expression inter alia would indicate that the two categories of cases listed in clauses I and II are not exhaustive. In the present case, on the date of the reference, the claim was within a period of three years from the date of the last transaction and therefore, was within limitation. The learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the claim was within limitation. 9. No other point has been pressed or urged at the hearing. 10. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the Appeal. 11. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.