Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

Stockbrokers Must Obtain SEBI Registration And Pay Fee For Every Stock Exchange – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On dated 20th March 2023, Supreme Court in a recent Judgement GPSK CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SEBI, held that a stockbroker not only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchanges where he operates but also has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed in terms of Part III annexed to Regulation 10 of the Regulations, 1992 in reference to each certificate of registration.

an appeal filed under Section 15(Z) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The appellant company, Mantri Finance Ltd., had claimed exemption from payment of fees for the period for which its erstwhile individual member, Srikant Mantri, had paid fees to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The SEBI had rejected the claim, stating that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of clause (4) of Schedule III of the SEBI (Stockbrokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992. The Securities Appellate Tribunal affirmed the SEBI's order, and the appellant filed an appeal against it. The appeal involved two issues: whether a single registration with SEBI is sufficient for a stockbroker to operate on multiple stock exchanges, and whether the appellant is entitled to fee continuity benefits provided under para 4 of Schedule III. The Tribunal held that a single registration with SEBI is sufficient, but the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions of clause (4) of Schedule III and was not eligible to claim exemption from payment of fees. Both the appellant company and the SEBI filed appeals against the Tribunal's judgment.

Observed and Held

Supreme Court referred to a previous judgment in Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. National Stock Exchange Members Association and Another, which dealt with the issue of whether a stock broker requires multiple registrations to operate on more than one stock exchange or a single registration will suffice for all the stock exchanges. In which it has been held that a stockbroker not only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchanges where he operates but also has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed in terms of Part III annexed to Regulation 10 of the Regulations, 1992 in reference to each certificate of registration.

Supreme Court observed that the issue at hand was whether the appellant company was entitled to fee continuity benefits under Para 4 of Schedule III of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992. The court noted that the regulation provided an exemption from paying fees for a corporate entity formed by converting an individual or partnership membership card of an exchange, subject to certain conditions.

The court found that the appellant company had failed to fulfill the conditions mentioned in Para 4 of Schedule III, as Srikant Mantri, the person who transferred his membership card to the company, was not a whole-time director but only a director at the time of the transfer. Additionally, the exact date on which he acquired 40% shareholding in the company was not clear. The company was also unable to demonstrate that it had fulfilled the conditions of Para 4 of Schedule III.

As a result, the Supreme Court held that the appeal had no merit and was dismissed without costs.

GPSK CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SEBI

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/20-Mar-2023-GPSK-vs-SEBI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News