BEFORE THE
SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision : 26.07.2019
Appeal No. 250 of 2018
Bharat Ramakrishna Sekhsaria
719, Rotunda, 7th Floor,
B.S. Marg, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 023.

…Appellant
Versus
1. Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
2. Bombay Stock Exchange
P.J. Towers, Dalal Street,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 023.

…Respondents
Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sharma,
Advocate i/b Thakordas and Madgavkar for the Appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody and
Mr. Sushant Yadav, Advocates i/b K Ashar & Co. for the
Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate with Ms. Rashi Dalmia,
Advocate i/b The Law Point for Respondent No. 2.
WITH
Appeal No. 249 of 2018
M/s. Ramakrishna Sekhsaria
719, Rotunda, 7th Floor,
B.S. Marg, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 023.

…Appellant
2
Versus
1. Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
2. Bombay Stock Exchange
P.J. Towers, Dalal Street,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 023.

…Respondents
Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sharma,
Advocate i/b Thakordas and Madgavkar for the Appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody and
Mr. Sushant Yadav, Advocates i/b K Ashar & Co. for the
Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate with Ms. Rashi Dalmia,
Advocate i/b The Law Point for Respondent No. 2.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The
appellant has challenged the Notice of Demand dated March 17,
2016 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,73,042/-.

3
2.

The facts leading to the filing of this appeal is that the fee
continuity liability was challenged by the appellant and
similarly situated broker which was decided by this Tribunal by
judgment dated May 12, 2006. A Review Application was filed
before this Tribunal on the ground that the provisional fee
liability statement dated August 25, 2004 was incorrect and was
not been considered in the decision of the Tribunal. The said
Review Application was rejected by an order dated September
22, 2006. For facility, the said order of this Tribunal is extracted
hereunder:-
“
This is an application seeking review of our order
dated 12.5.2006 by which a bunch of appeals filed by stock
brokers were dismissed upholding the fee liability
statements issued to them by the Securities and Exchange
Board of India (for short the Board). Appeal No.243 of
2004 was one of the appeals disposed of by the aforesaid
order.
2.
The only ground of which the order is sought to be
reviewed is that the provisional fee liability statement
dated 25.8.2004 impugned in the main appeal had two
columns pertaining to jobbing transactions and
compulsory carry forward turnover in which the
amounts, according to the appellant, were wrongly
included. We cannot ascertain this plea in the review
petition. The provisional fee liability statement has been
upheld by us. The appellant was present in Court when
the appeals were heard and disposed of. No such plea was
raised at the time of hearing. In this view of the matter,
our order dated 12.5.2006 cannot be said to be suffering
4
from error apparent on the face of it and therefore, there is
no ground to review the same. Consequently, the
application is dismissed.”
3.

Both the orders of this Tribunal were affirmed by the
Supreme Court by its order dated October 6, 2015. In the order
dated October 6, 2015 the Supreme Court categorically repelled
the submission of the appellant with regard to the correctness of
the fee liability statement. For facility, the order of the Supreme
Court dated October 6, 2015 is extracted hereunder:-
“In CIVIL APPEAL No. 243 of 2007
This Appeal emanates from a decision of the Securities
Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the SAT’) holding inter alia
that a son cannot claim benefit of fee continuity merely on the
basis that his father was a registered member of a Stock
Exchange. So far as this question of law is concerned, it
stands settled on all fours by the decision of this Court in
‘”Nikhil Kanchanlal Vakharia vs. Securities & Exchange
Board of India” (2008) 7 SCC 336 against the Appellant.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in these
matters the fee liability statement was not separately
considered by SAT. It is submitted that this is the reason
why the Review was filed.
We have perused the order passed by the SAT in
regard to this Review Application. It clearly states that this
question was not argued or raised by the learned Counsel for
the Appellant before the SAT. Learned Counsel appearing
before us has not succeeded in persuading us that these
questions which essentially factual in nature, were raised
before the SAT. In these circumstances, the Appeal does not
fall within the postulation of Section 15Z of the Securities
and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. It is accordingly
dismissed.

5
CIVIL APPEAL No.319 of 2007
The fact situation is almost identical in material
content to that in C.A. No.243 of 2007. However, there is no
appearance on behalf of the Appellant. Consequently this
Appeal also stands dismissed.”
4.

In the light of the aforesaid, fee liability statement had
become final and the amount having not been paid the
impugned recovery certificate was issued.

5.

Before this Tribunal an attempt was made by the learned
counsel for the appellant contending that originally the firm was
being carried on in the proprietorship of Ramakrishna Sekhsaria
who died on July 1, 1993 and thereafter the registration was
transferred in the name of Bharat Ramakrishna Sekhsaria who is
the son of Ramakrishna Sekhsaria. In this regard, the learned
counsel placed reliance on the fee liability statement at
Annexure – J, Page – 86 to the memo of appeal to show that the
fee was being charged even after the expiry of Ramakrishna
Sekhsaria on July 1, 1993. This submission in the first flush
appeared to be attractive but we find from the page 100 to the
memo of appeal that the outstanding fee along with interest of
Ramakrishna Sekhsaria was being charged because the
appellant Bharat Ramakrishna Sekhsaria was a partner in the
6
firm Ramakrishna Sekhsaria. This fact as to whether he was a
partner in the said partnership firm has not been disputed nor
denied anywhere in the appeal. Consequently, at this belated
stage it is no longer open to the appellant to question the
veracity and legality of the recovery certificate on the basis of
the fee liability statement which has been settled at rest finally
by the Supreme Court.

6.

The appeals consequently fail and are dismissed with no
order as to costs.

Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Dr. C.K.G. Nair
Member
Sd/Justice M.T. Joshi
Judicial Member
26.07.2019
Prepared and compared by:msb