Appeal No.165/2004
Date of Decision
03.05.2006
In the matter of:
1. Ramaniklal Mohanlal Capital Markets Pvt.Ltd.,
2. Shri Samir R. Jhaveri
Appellants – Represented by Mr. Devanshu Desai, Advocate
Versus
1. Securities & Exchange Board of India.
2. Bombay Stock Exchange
Respondent – Represented by Mr. Dipan Merchant, Advocate
Coram:
Justice N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer
C. Bhattacharya, Member
R. N. Bhardwaj, Member
Per: Justice N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer(Oral)
This order will dispose of a bunch of 11 Appeals nos. 165, 201, 228, 236, 287, 295, 298, 299, 307, 319 and 321 of 2004 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the appellant in all these cases are stock brokers who to begin with were carrying on their broking business as individuals/partnership firms and that they got corporatised during the period from 1/4/1997 to 20/1/1998. The claim of the appellants is that in view of paragraph 4 of Schedule III to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Regulations, 1992 which was introduced with effect from 21/1/1998 they are entitled to the exemption from payment of registration fee for the period for which the erstwhile individual or partnership firm had already paid the fees subject, of course, to the other conditions specified in paragraph 4 being satisfied. The grievance of the appellants is that the Board is not giving them the benefit of this exemption on the ground that they got corporatised period to the introduction of paragraph 4 in Schedule III to the Regulations. The learned counsel appearing for Securities and Exchange Board of India states before us that the Board itself had issued a circular on March 28, 2002 clarifying that all brokers like the appellants who were corporatised between 1/4/1997 and 20/1/1998 would be entitled to the benefit of exemption provided they satisfy the other conditions. In view of this statement, the present appeals have become infructuous.
The learned counsel for the Board however, points out that some of the appellants did not satisfy the other requirements of paragraph 4 and, therefore, they are not entitled to the exemption in terms thereof. It is not for this tribunal to decide this issue in the first instance. Since the appellants are claiming exemption in terms of paragraph 4 and have made claims in this regard, the Board should consider such claims and after affording an opportunity of hearing pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With these observations the appeals are disposed of as infructuous.
Sd/-
Justice N. K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer
C. Bhattacharya
Member
R. N. BhardwajMember
03 /05/2006.