In Brief
A registered stock broker sought to recover losses from the accounts of a husband and wife by invoking arbitration under Bombay Stock Exchange bye-laws. The arbitral tribunal held both spouses jointly and severally liable. The High Court set aside the award against the husband, finding he was not properly a party to the arbitration and that the liability finding was perverse. The Supreme Court upheld the award, holding that the oral agreement of joint and several liability brought both spouses into a composite transaction covered by the arbitration clause, and that the tribunal's factual findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The Court reaffirmed limits on judicial review of arbitral awards.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.