Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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