IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

Appeal No. 72 �of 2005

 

Date of Decision

13.6.2006

 

1. Mahesh Kothari Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 2. Mahesh Kothari	��	Appellants
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India The Stock Exchange, Mumbai	��	Respondents

 

Present :� Mr. Sean Wassoodew, Advocate for the appellants

����������������� Mr. Dipan Merchant, Sr. Advocate with Mr. U.N. Das, Advocate����� for the respondent����

 

Coram:

��������� Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer

����������� R. N. Bhardwaj, Member

 

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

 

 

����������� The benefit of fee continuity has been denied to appellant no. 1 solely on the ground that the individual membership card was converted into a corporate entity prior to 1.4.1997.� By our order dated 9.5.2006 passed in Alliance Finstock Ltd. & anr. vs. SEBI & anr. Appeal no. 123/2004 we have held that individuals and partnerships which got corporatised prior to 1.4.1997 are also entitled to 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.� 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 aforesaid decision.

   2.            The question which now arises is as to the rate at which the registration fee is to be charged.� This matter will be decided by Securities and Exchange Board of India in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.� It will� be open to the appellant to produce before the Board the statement of its turnover for the relevant years with break-up and in case this information is furnished the Board will determine the liability in accordance with law.� The statement shall be duly certified by the concerned stock exchange.� The appellant claims that it is entitled to the benefit under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Interest Liability Regularisation) Scheme, 2004.� This plea should also be raised before the Board and if it is so raised, the same shall� be decided in accordance with law.� Respondent no. 1 is directed to furnish to the appellant a certified copy of the turnover statement with break-up if an application for the same is made to enable the appellant to produce the same before the Board.

   3.            The appeal stands allowed as above with no order as to costs.

 

 

 

13.6.2006

 

 

//SR14/6/06 14:18