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

In the matter of Tackel Stock Broking Service P.Ltd

May 16, 2006
|
Orders : Orders of SAT

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

 

Appeal No.373/2004

 

Date of Decision

16.05.2006

 

In the matter of:

 

Tackel Stock Broking Service P.Ltd.,

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)

          Mr. Lalit Kumar Tulshyan had been carrying on his business as a broker and was registered as such with the Calcutta Stock Exchange.  He then formed a company on 2/11/1995 in which he became a director and the said company continued to carry on the broking business.  The Calcutta Stock Exchange  as per its communication dated September 20, 1996 approved the company as a corporate member of the exchange subject to payment of the requisite fees as mentioned in the said communication.  The company was then registered on 6/3/1997 as a broker with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) and the certificate of registration is on the record.  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 denied by the Board only on the ground that the broker  got corporatised prior to 1/4/1997.  It is this action of the Board which is under challenge before us.

          We have heard the 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/