As per case facts, a stockbroker's client, a Hindu Undivided Family's Karta, reactivated his trading account through an unregistered individual, Mateen, who posed as an Authorized Person. The client entrusted ... Mateen with login details, leading to high-volume trades and significant losses, alongside substantial brokerage charges. After failing to recover losses from Mateen, the client complained, alleging unauthorized trades and excessive brokerage. The Investor Grievance Redressal Committee and subsequent Arbitral Tribunals found the client negligent and that trades were authorized, denying claims for share restoration. However, they directed the stockbroker to refund brokerage, reasoning that the trades were primarily for brokerage generation. The stockbroker challenged this. The question arose whether, after finding trades authorized and the investor negligent, an Arbitral Tribunal can direct a stockbroker to refund brokerage based on equitable principles or a presumption of 'brokerage generation' without explicit authorization for such a jurisdiction. Finally, the High Court held that such a direction was patently illegal, contrary to the Arbitration Act and fundamental Indian law, as it amounted to 'panchayati justice' and awarded compensation without establishing a breach of contract by the stockbroker, setting aside the awards.