JUDGMENT The Petitioner-Original Respondent has challenged award dated 20 August 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the matter arising out of the Bye-Laws, Rules and Regulations of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, “NSEIL”), under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Arbitration Act”). 2. The operative part of the award is as under:- “7.1. The respondent is directed to pay the claim of Rs.5,51,969.64 (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty One Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Nine and Paise Sixty Four only) to the applicant M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Limited with interesst @ 12% p.a. from the date of the debit balance till payment within 30 days from the date of this award. 7.2 Cost of Arbitration to be borne by the applicant.” 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has basically relied upon the agreement between the parties referring to the email other than (HVTPZ05@fastcontrol.in”) mentioned therein and further contended that the documents/Elog so produced and filed itself shows that as per the agreement, contract notes were forwarded through Elog of the contract on above address. There is no serious dispute that the ledger statements, contract notes etc. have been submitted along with the statement of the case and log of sending ECN and ledger balance confirmation, marked as Annexure “I” of the record of the Arbitrator. 4. The submission, therefore with regard to this e-mail address is unacceptable basically in view of the undisputed position on record that since 2007 till July 2008 the email address was same and not as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The objection, even if any, was only with regard to the transactions of January 18, 2008 to January 22, 2008. There was no dispute with regard to the earlier transactions including contract notes, file names, email address, report date and the party code. Though there is feeble contention raised that the Petitioner never received the welcome key and/or email ID, but above undisputed position on record and earlier transactions to which there is no justification available on record, the case of the Petitioner in this regard is unacceptable. 5. Though there is feeble contention raised that the Petitioner never received the welcome key and/or email ID, but above undisputed position on record and earlier transactions to which there is no justification available on record, the case of the Petitioner in this regard is unacceptable. 5. There is no serious dispute that the Petitioner from time to time, even after January 2010 made substantial payments with regard to the earlier transactions which were based upon the practice adopted by and between the parties, including of accepting the contract notes through email address so noted above. 6. Admittedly, the Petitioner made payment of Rs.2 lacs after 18 January 2008's disputed transaction. The justification, whatsoever just cannot be accepted now in view of the fact that the cheque was bounced twice. The Criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is still pending. There was no occasion for the Petitioner to deposit the cheque of Rs.2 lacs again. 7. The learned Arbitrator therefore, considering the documents placed on record including those filed along with the rejoinder, after giving opportunity to both the parties and by reasoned order taking note of the submissions of both the parties, has passed the award, which in any case cannot be stated to be perverse and/or contrary to the record. 8. Considering the scope and purpose of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and as award is well within the framework of law and the record, there is no perversity. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, in my view, no case is made out by the Petitioner to interfere with the same. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.