1. Home
  2. »
  3. Enforcement
  4. »
  5. Orders
  6. »
  7. Orders of SAT

In the matter of Sahil Securities Ltd

May 16, 2006
|
Orders : Orders of SAT

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

 

Appeal No.394/2004

 

Date of Decision

16.05.2006

 

In the matter of:

 

Sahil Securities Ltd.,

Appellant – Represented by Mr. Bharat Merchant , Advocate

 

Versus

 

 

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India

2. The Delhi Stock Exchange Associationm Ltd.,

Respondent – Represented by Mr. V. N. Shignapurkar, Advocate

Respondent – Represented by none.

 

Coram:

          Justice N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer

          R. N. Bhardwaj, Member

 

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

 

          Ms. Aruna Manchanda had been carrying on her business as a broker and was registered as such with the Delhi Stock Exchange.  She  formed a company under the name and style of M/s. Sahil Securities Ltd., and the said company continued with the broking  business.  The Delhi Stock Exchange  approved on 6//2/1995 the corporate membership of the company and the Securities and Exchange Board of India  (for short the Board) registered it as a broker on 15/3/1995.   On registration, the company claimed the fee continuity benefit in terms of paragraph 4 of  Schedule III to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (for short the Regulations).  This claim was rejected  by the Board only on the ground that the broker got corporatised prior to 1/4/1997. It is against this action of the Board that the present appeal has been filed.

          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.   By our order dated 9/5/2006 passed in Alliance Finstock Ltd., & anr.  vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India & anr. Appeal no.123 of 2004, we have held that individuals who got themselves corporatised prior to April 1, 1997 are also entitled to the fee continuity benefit under  paragraph 4 of  Schedule III to the Regulations provided they satisfy the other requirements of that paragraph.   The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the dispute herein is squarely covered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent by our order passed in Alliance Finstock’s case (supra).  We, therefore, dispose of the appeal in the same terms on which Alliance Finstock Ltd.’s case (supra) was decided.  No costs.

 

sd/-

Justice N.K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer

sd/-

C.Bhattacharya
Member

sd/-

R.N.Bhardwaj
Member

 

16/05/2006.

Smn/16/5/