Misc. Application No. 41 of 2006
in
Appeal No. 215 of 2004
Date of Decision 10.11.2006
Ramaben Samani Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India
Present : Mr. Joby Mathew, Advocate for the appellant
Dr. Poornima Advani, Advocate for the respondent
Coram:
Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer
C. Bhattacharya, Member
Per: Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (oral)
The present application filed by the applicant is as frivolous as it could be and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The applicant had filed Appeal no. 215 of 2004 before this Tribunal impugning the action of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) in not granting the fee continuity benefit to it. The applicant is a transferee to whom the membership of the stock exchange was transferred by the transferor. It claimed that it was entitled to the benefit of the registration fee which the transferor had paid to the Board and therefore the Board was in error in not granting this benefit. The appeal came up for hearing with a bunch of appeals in which a similar issue was involved and it was dismissed on 12.5.2006. The applicant then filed a review application seeking review of our order on the ground that we had failed to consider the plea that the Board did not apply the correct rate of fee applicable in terms of sub-clause (bb) of clause (1) of paragraph 1 to Schedule III to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992. We dismissed the review application on 28.8.2006 on the ground that the plea sought to be raised in the application had not been pressed at the time of arguments in the main appeal on 12.5.2006. By the time the review application came up for hearing the applicant had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against our order dated 12.5.2006. Since the appeal had been filed we dismissed the review application on that ground as well leaving it to the applicant to urge all such pleas before the Apex Court. Now another review application has been filed on the ground that the Board may be directed to receive from the applicant the correct figures in regard to its jobbing turnover and then determine its fee liability. If we allow this application we will have to review our order dated 12.5.2006.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are clearly of the view that the second review application is not maintainable. We have already held that the applicant as a transferee is not entitled to claim the benefit of fee continuity in terms of the aforesaid schedule. Consequently, the application is dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-Justice N.K. SodhiPresiding OfficerSd/-R.N.BhardwajMember
10.11.2006
//SR15/11/06 10:16