Tuesday, August 25, 2026
Latest:
2026ArbitrationBSEHigh CourtLatestLegalNSEODR PlatformSEBIStock Echange

Bombay HC on Maintainability of Writ Petition Challenging Arbitration

legaldeli

Judgment dated 21.8.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.694 of 2025 of ITC Limited  Vs.  Metropolitan Stock Exchange, Ashok Mootha, Jupitice Justice Technology Private Limited and SEBI

SEBI Master Circular dated 31.7.2023 for Online Dispute Resolution.

The respondent no. Metropolitan Stock Exchange through respondent no.3 ODR Institution called upon the petitioner to participate in arbitration through its ODR portal, to comply with the requirements and payment of arbitration fees.

The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the initiation and continuation of arbitral proceedings against the Petitioner through the ODR mechanism, pursuant to the complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2 and its allocation to MSE, disclose such a patent lack of jurisdiction or authority,

The Master Circular establishes a structured mechanism for resolution of disputes arising between investors or clients and listed companies and specified intermediaries or regulated entities in the securities market. The mechanism contemplates escalation of an unresolved grievance and thereafter its reference to the ODR Portal for online dispute resolution. The scheme is therefore not merely an optional administrative facility but a regulatory dispute-resolution mechanism established by SEBI for specified disputes arising in the securities market.

The next relevant provision of the Master Circular is paragraph 16, which deals with allocation of disputes to ODR Institutions. It provides for a market-wide round-robin allocation system, subject to the specific stipulation that, during the relevant period, complaints or disputes arising with a specific trading member in relation to an exchange transaction or with a listed company are to be referred to the ODR Institution(s) empaneled by the relevant Stock Exchange. The footnote to paragraph 16 further addresses the situation where an intermediary is linked to more than one Stock Exchange or where a company is listed on more than one Stock Exchange. The allocation provision is therefore required to be read as a whole. The round-robin mechanism cannot be considered in isolation from the express qualification contained in paragraph 16(a).

Challenges of limitation, power, jurisdiction, maintainability, repeated complaints, abuse of process, etc; are ordinarily to be decided by the arbitral forum and not by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction merely because a party asserts that the claim is frivolous or time barred.

You May Also Like

RERA – Goa – Appointment of Member in Breach of recommendations of the Selection Committee

legaldeli

SC on threshold limit of 100 allottees – second proviso to section 7(1) of IBC on the date of Insolvency Petition

legaldeli

Bombay HC – Once Section 11 of MOFA is applied, the society must receive the promoter’s actual estate – Leasehold or Ownership under the Development Agreement

legaldeli

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I HAVE READ THE DISCLAIMER AND AGREE TO IT.

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the "AGREE" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about LegalDeli for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from LegalDeli or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledge site. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.

Disclaimer
About: This knowledge-site (www.LegalDeli.in) is owned and operated by LegalDeli (“LD”), and is a resource for your informational and educational purposes only.

No Warranty: LD does not warrant that any content or information contained on this knowledge-site is accurate, correct, complete or up-to-date, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any actual or threatened loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or otherwise. LD assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the content and/or information contained on this knowledge-site, nor does it offer any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied in relation to such content or information.

Third-Party Links: LD does not intend that links / URLs contained on this knowledge-site re-directing users to third party websites be considered as referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with any such third party website operators. LD is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the content or information contained on such third party websites to which links may be provided on this knowledge-site.

No Legal Advice: By clicking ‘I agree’ and proceeding further, you acknowledge, represent and undertake that you on your own accord wish to know more about LD, its capabilities and research content and information contained on the knowledge-site, for your own knowledge and personal use. The content and information contained on this knowledge-site should not be construed as nor relied upon as legal advice. You as a reader or recipient of content or information contained in this knowledge-site should not act, nor refrain from acting, based upon any or all of such content or information, but should always seek the advice of competent legal counsel licensed to practice the relevant law in the appropriate jurisdiction.

No Attorney-Client Relationship: This knowledge-site is not intended to be and you should not consider the content or information contained therein to be an advertisement, solicitation, inducement or invitation for an Attorney-Client relationship. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledge-site, including content and information contained therein, does not constitute nor create an Attorney-Client relationship between LD and you.

I Agree