High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High 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