Appeal No. 69 of 2005
Date of Decision
13.6.2006
Devichand Hansraj Oswal
Versus
1. Securities & Exchange Board of India
2. Pune Stock Exchange Ltd.
Present : Mr. Vicky Singh & Mr. O. Mohandas, Advocates for the appellant
Mr. Dipan Merchant, Sr. Advocate with Mr. U.N. Das, Advocate for respondent no. 1
Coram:
Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer
R. N. Bhardwaj, Member
Per: Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (oral)
The appellant before us is a stock broker. He has filed this appeal under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 challenging the fee liability statement sent to him by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board). His grievance is that for the financial year 1992-93 registration fee has been levied at a higher rate in terms of clause (b) of paragraph 1 of Schedule III to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulation 1992 (for short the Regulations) whereas it should have been charged as per sub-clause (i) of clause (bb). It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the turnover for the relevant year was only of jobbing transactions and that delivery based turnover was nil. He has placed before us a copy of the letter dated June 28, 2005 addressed by the Pune Stock Exchange to the Deputy General Manager of the Board in support of his plea. Reference has also been made to the fee liability statement at page 14 of the paper book to contend that fee has been levied at a higher rate. It appears to be so. The learned counsel also contends that the appellant is entitled to the benefit under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Interest Liability Regularisation) Scheme, 2004.
2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Board on receipt of instructions from the departmental representatives who are present in Court states that in view of the letter now produced by the appellant his fee liability will be recomputed in accordance with law and that the fee liability statement already sent to him shall stand withdrawn.
3. In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent the learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant through his counsel is directed to appear before the Board on June 27, 2006 for further proceedings. It is made clear that the claim of the appellant in regard to the benefit under the aforesaid scheme will also be considered by the Board in accordance with law.
Sd/-Justice N.K. SodhiPresiding OfficerSd/-R.N.BhardwajMember