'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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