IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

 

Appeal No.318/2004

 

Date of Decision       16.05.2006

 

In the matter of:

 

Raj Kishore Chug & others	Appellant – Represented by Mr. Bharat Merchant , Advocate
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India	Respondent – Represented by Mr. V. N. Shignapurkar, Advocate

 

Coram:

 

          Justice N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer

          R. N. Bhardwaj, Member

 

Per: Justice N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer(Oral)

 

 

                   M/s. R. K. Chug & Co., a partnership firm was carrying on its business as a broker since the year 1992.  This firm was reconstituted on 2/1/1995 and it started functioning under the name and style of Raj Kishore Chug & Co., with the following three partners:

          1. Mr. Raj Kishore Chug                   -        40%

          2.  Mrs. Nirmal Chug               -        30%

          3. Mr. Saurabh Chug              -        30%

Raj Kishore Chug expired in February 1996 and his share in the partnership devolved on the two surviving partners who continued their business under the same name.  This firm was registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board)on 10/10/1996 as a broker.  Since the firm was registered afresh the Board demanded the registration fee which was paid.  The firm however, claimed exemption from payment of registration fee on the ground that it was the continuation of the old firm which had already paid the said fee.  The claim was rejected and in the fee liability statement furnished by the Board fresh registration fee was also claimed.  It is this action of the Board which is under challenge before us.

          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the appeal.  There is no gainsaying the fact that every broker who gets registered with the Board has to pay the registration fee at the time of registration.  Since the appellant firm after its reconstitution was registered on 10/10/1996, it was liable to pay the said fee and the Board was right in claiming the same.  No provision of law has been pointed out under which exemption could be claimed.  The learned counsel for the appellant concedes that there is no provision in the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers & Sub Brokers) Regulations, 1992  under which the appellant could claim exemption from payment of registration fee,  nor could he point out any circular issued by the Board in this regard.  In the absence of any such provision we are clearly of the view that the appellant was liable to pay the registration fee at the time when it got itself registered as a broker on 10/10/1996.  In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned action of the Board.

          In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

sd/-

Justice N.K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer

sd/-

C.Bhattacharya
Member

sd/-

R.N.Bhardwaj
Member

11/05/2006.

Smn/11/5/