Back
AJAY RASTOGI, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Securities and Exchange Board of India – Appellant
Versus
National Stock Exchange Members Association – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
Civil Appeal No. 435 of 2007
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th November, 2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, setting aside the finding returned by the learned Single Judge of the High Court under judgment dated 26th October, 2004. The Division Bench has arrived at a conclusion that in terms of Section 12(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1992”) a single registration with Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI”) is sufficient even if the stock broker has various memberships and functions from several stock exchanges and, therefore, will have to pay the fee for the initial registration with SEBI and, accordingly, set aside paragraph (vi) of Part A of the Circular dated 28th March, 2002 issued by SEBI.
Factual backdrop
2. SEBI has been established under provisions of the Act, 1992 with an object to protect the interest of investors in the securities market and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market. SEBI was created as a regulator to regulate the securities’ market whi
The main legal point established in the judgment is that stock brokers need to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each stock exchange where they operate, and the ad valorem fee for an....
The court clarified the definition of 'annual turnover' in regulatory fee calculations, emphasizing it includes all transaction values of securities, not merely brokerage.
Corporate entity is not entitled to claim exemption from payment of registration fee only if individual or partnership had been converted into a corporate entity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that SEBI has the authority under the SEBI Act to make regulations concerning charging of fees by Investment Advisors from their clients, and the i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validation of SEBI's Exit Policy and SECC Regulations, finding them in consonance with the SCR Act, and the court's direction for CSE to comply....
(1) Rectificatory jurisdiction under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013 is summary in nature and not intended to be exercised where there are contested facts and disputed questions.(2) Public administ....
The court affirmed that the Special Judge has discretion in compounding offence penalties under the SEBI Act, and can determine interest rates independently of SEBI's recommendations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
