BEFORE THE SECU RITIES APPELLATE T R I BU N A L
M U M BA I
Appeal N o. 103 of 2011
Date of decision: 29.06.2011
M/s. Munoth Capital Market Limited
101 ‐ 102, G al a Argos,
Behind Harikrupa Tower,
Near Kalgi Char Rasta,
Gujarat College Road,
Ellisbridge, A h m e d a bad – 380 006.
Gujarat.
…… Appellant
Versus
- The National Stock Exchange of India Lim ited
Exchange Plaza, Bandra‐ Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
- Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C ‐ 4A, G‐ Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandr a (East),
Mumbai – 400 051. …… Respondents
Mr. Paras Parekh, Advocate with Ms. Delna Aga, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Sachin Chandarona, Advocate with Ms. Jarsy Mai, Advocate
for Respondent No.1.
Dr. (Mrs.) Poornima Advani, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Khaire and
Ms. Amrita Joshi, Advocates for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : Justice N.K. Sodhi, Pre s iding Officer
P. K. Malhotra, Member
S.S.N. Moo r thy, Member
Per : J u s t i ce N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral)
The only question t ha t arises for our consideration in t hi s appeal is
whether the appellant had exercised its option in accordance with clause 2 in 2
Schedule IIIA to the Securities and Excha nge Board of India (Stock Broke r s
and Sub ‐ Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (for short the regulations) to be g o v e r ne d
by the pro v isions of t hi s schedule. The appellant claims that it exercised the
option by i ts letter of January 2, 2007 which was sent to the Na tional Stock
Exchange Ltd. (for short NSE) through courier on January 9, 2007. The
learned counsel appearing for NSE seriously disputes this po sition and has
made a categorical statement before us tha t NSE did not receive this letter.
The appellant claims tha t the letter was sent through a courier c om p a n y by the
name of A ra m e x India Pvt. Ltd. It has p r o d u c e d a copy of the courier r e c e ipt .
A mere look at this receipt does not inspire confidence and it cannot be said
with any certainty that it is genuine. The name of the addressee has been
typed thereon throu gh a computer and that name is Samir Enterprise
(AMD/SRT). The name of the appellant ha s then been substituted with hand.
Similarly, the account number and the shi pper’s reference have been altered
and superimposed with hand wr itten numbers. The receipt does not bear any
stamp of the courier com p any. We cannot rely on this receipt to hold that t he
letter in question had been sent by the appellant. Admittedly, there is no
acknowledgment on t he record.
- The appellant is a stock broker which has to pay broker f ee in
accordance with the r e gulations. Schedule IIIA was introduced with effect
from October 1, 2006 and it prescribes yet another mode of calculating the
broker fee to be paid by brokers. It is c o m m on ground between the parties that
the appella nt was registered as a stock broker in t he year 2005 and Schedule
IIIA on its own would have b e com e applicable to it only upon completion of
ten financi a l years f ro m the date of registration with the Securities and 3
Exchange Board of India. That period has not expired yet. How e ver, brokers
who are not covered by this schedule can still make payment of broker fee in
accordance therewith provided they exercise an option in terms of clause 2
thereof. We have noticed the bone of contention between the parties and their
rival stands. Since we cannot r e ly upon t he courier receipt which has now
been p r o d u c e d , it cannot be hel d that the a p pellant had exercised its option in
terms of c la u s e 2. In this view of the matter, we find no fault with the a c t i o n
of NSE in asking the a ppellant to make payment in accordance with the other
provisions of the Regulations.
In t he result, there is no merit in the appeal and t he same stands
dismissed. No costs.
Sd/‐
Justice N. K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer
Sd/‐
P. K. Malhotra
Member
Sd/‐
S.S.N. Moorthy
Member
29.06.2011
Prepared and compared by ‐ ddg