SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Sharekhan Limited – Appellant
Versus
Darshini Shah – Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 94 of 2024, Interim Application No. 6876 of 2025
Decided On : 09-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Prathamesh Kamat, Ativ Patel, Viloma Shah, Viraj Raiyani
For the Respondents: Saurabh Bacchawat, Rajesh Khandelwal, Juris Link

A client must adhere to contractual obligations regarding annual maintenance charges for reduced brokerage rates; failure to do so results in automatic application of normal charges.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Dispute between stock broker and client regarding brokerage charges under AMC scheme after trading account deemed 'inactive' - Respondent failed to pay AMC leading to automatic discontinuation of reduced brokerage, resulting in broker charging normal rates. (Paras 2-4, 11-14, 24-36)

(B) Interpretation of agreements - Non-payment of annual maintenance charge (AMC) automatically leads to application of standard brokerage rates; rejection of appeal upheld as findings were inconsistent and contravened public policy. (Paras 24-36)

(C) NSE Circular dated 10 February 2020 - Pertains to KYC requirements and inactive accounts; does not alter contractual obligations regarding brokerage. (Paras 24-27)

Facts of the case:
Dispute arose from a stock broking agreement where the client contended excessive brokerage charges after failure to pay AMC. Arbitration award favored client but was challenged by the broker on grounds of contradictory findings regarding contractual obligations and KYC compliance.

Findings of Court:
The arbitration awards were set aside due to inconsistencies and errors regarding the application of brokerage rates and contractual duties by the parties.

Issues: Main issues included the entitlement of the client to reduced brokerage despite not paying AMC and the enforceability of the terms of the initial agreement post-AMC expiry.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that discontinuation of AMC due to non-payment could not retroactively affect contractual brokerage obligations, emphasizing that the circular does not negate the necessity of KYC compliance for trading activities.

Result: Arbitration award set aside.

Table of Content
1. challenge to arbitral award based on brokerage charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding kyc requirements and brokerage application. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. determination of brokerage charges under amc scheme. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. analysis of nse circular applicability on inactive accounts. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24)
5. setting aside of arbitral awards due to perverse findings. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Petitioner, a stock broker, has filed the present Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) challenging the Award dated 29 August 2022 passed by the Three Member Appellate Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Byelaws of National Stock Exchange (NSE) dismissing the appeal preferred by the Petitioner and confirming the Award of the learned sole Arbitrator dated 26 April 2022. The learned sole Arbitrator, by Award dated 26 April 2022, had overruled the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) and had allowed the claim of the Respondent in the sum of Rs.4,87,513/- without any cost and interest.

2. Petitioner is a stoker broker registered under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and is in the business of share/stock broking and buying and selling of shares/stocks for and on behalf of its clients. Respondent is the client of the Petitioner. In September 2007, Respondent had approached the Petitioner to sign up as a customer for commencing trading of shares and stocks with the Petitioners through online mode. On 25 September 2007 Agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent in respect of Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange. Under the Agreement, Respondent agreed to pay brokerage and statutory levies on transactions effected in her trading account. Respondent also signed a Brokerage and Account Maintenance Charges form (AMC) under which she was liable to pay yearly sum of Rs.6,000/- and avail benefit of reduced brokerage. Accordingly, Respondent continued paying AMC charges from 2007 to 2012 of Rs.6,000/- per year and availed the benefit of reduced brokerage of 0.25%. According to the Petitioner, Respondent failed to pay AMC charges from the year 2013 onwards despite sending several reminders. On account of negative balance during the relevant years, Petitioner could not recover the AMC charges or to renew the AMC scheme which got deactivated on 19 October 2013. It appears that Respondent’s trading account was in a dormant stage during 2013 to 2020. In May 2021, Respondent commenced transactions in Future and Option segment (F&O). Petitioner permitted such transactions without securing any further KYC documents. On account of non-continuation of AMC scheme, Petitioner charged their brokerage on transactions effected by the Respondent. On 1 November 2021, Petitioner charged default brokerage on cash delivery @ 0.50% and derivatives @ 2.5%. Petitioner accordingly raised invoice of Rs.5,08,893.2/- towards brokerage. It appears that the Respondent incurred losses in the transactions to the tune of Rs.38,000/- and requested for reduction of brokerage charges. Petitioner has sent SMS dated 3 November 2021 reducing the brokerage rates from 3 November 2021 as a goodwill gesture.

3. On 8 November 2021, Respondent filed a complaint with NSE regarding charging of brokerage by the Petitioner. Petitioner responded to NSE with a reply justifying charging of normal brokerage on account of discontinuation of AMC scheme. GRC of NSE heard the complaint of the Respondent and by its order dated 10 December 2021, declined to grant any relief in favour of the Respondent.

4. Respondent applied for arbitral reference before the NSE. Accordingly, Arbitral Tribunal of the learned sole Arbitrator was constituted by NSE. The learned sole Arbitrator made Award dated 26 April 2022 holding the Petitioner responsible for not securing KYC documents from the Respondent at the time of reinitia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top