BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
DATE : 15.01.2019
Appeal No. 34 of 2018
Col. Ashok Kumar Nair (Retd.)
B 102, Neelanchal CGHS,
Sector 4, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075.

….. Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.

…… Respondent
Mr. A. K. Nair, Appellant in person.
Mr. Aditya Mehta, Advocate with Mr. Chirag Shettty, Advocate for the
Respondent.
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order of SEBI dated
August 1, 2017 by which the appellant’s complaint was rejected.

It
transpires that appellant had forwarded a complaint dated April 21, 2017
alleging that India Bulls Ventures Ltd (‘India Bulls’ for short) was
misrepresenting to NSDL with regard to applicability of the AMC charges
to his portfolio operated by them. According to the appellant the charges
were not applicable to holdings below Rs. 50,000/- as per the SEBI’s
circular dated August 27, 2012. Inspite of this circular India Bulls was
demanding the AMC charges.

2.

It is urged by the respondent that India Bulls on multiple occasions
had informed the appellant that he was eligible and had an option to convert
his existing demat account into Basic Services Demat Account (‘BSDA’ for
short) by submitting a request for such conversion. According to SEBI, the
2
appellant did not apply for such request before India Bulls. Further, since
the appellant opened another account with ICICI Bank Demat Services, the
complaint of the appellant was rejected on the ground that he was not
eligible for BSDA as he was holding multiple accounts in active status.

3.

According to the appellant, the e-mails of India Bulls had never been
received by him. Further, during the pendency of the appeal, India Bulls
has withdrawn the charges and has transferred the shares from demat
account to ICICI Bank Demat Services.

4.

In view of the aforesaid, the complaint of the appellant has now been
resolved. Accordingly, the appeal has become infructuous and is dismissed
as such.

5.

Before parting, we find that the appellant had further stated that ICICI
Bank Demat Services are now also demanding AMC charges for account
opening even though the value of the holding is below Rs. 50,000/.
According to the appellant the charges are not payable. It was asserted that
he had made a complaint to SEBI which was rejected on the ground that he
has multiple accounts. Even though, these assertions are not on record, we
direct that in the event the appellant make a fresh complaint before SEBI,
the same shall be addressed sympathetically and a detailed and reasoned
order would be passed.

6.

In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Dr. C. K. G. Nair
Member
15.01.2019
Prepared & Compared by
PTM