OPG SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. versus S.E.B.I. & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 14 S.C.R. 171 · Decided: 04-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 14 S.C.R. 171 
OPG SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. 
v. 
S.E.B.I. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3548 of 2010) 
DECEMBER 04, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJlT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
·Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock-brokers 
and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992: Dispute arose on c 
account of amended Regulations effective from 1. 10.2006 
introducing Schedule II/A into the Regulations - For stock 
brokers, the measure of fee under Schedule Ill was "turnover 
of the previous year• on yearly basis and the same was 
replaced by concept of monthly fee on the basis of monthly D 
turnover - Demand of registration fee from appellant stock 
broker not only on. the basis of turnover of the previous year 
but also for the entire turnover earned after the turnover of 
the previous year and till the implementation of the Schedule 
.. 
I/IA - Held: Demand liable to be quashed in view of specific E 
provisions of the Regulations, particularly clause IV to 
Schedule Ill and whole of Schedule II/A which were introduced 
together by the third amendment to the Regulation w.e.f. 
1.10.2006 - After 30.9.2006, Schedule II/A admittedly 
became applicable to the appellant and, therefore, no F 
provisions in Schedule Ill could be applied in the instant 
case - Registration fee for any future period since 1. 10.2006 
to be calculated on the basis of monthly turnover and payable 
each month asper provisions in Schedule I/IA. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: After Schedule lllA became applicable, the 
Registration fee for any future period since 1.10.2006 
could not be levied or demanded on the basis of H 
171 
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A Schedule Ill. It had to be calculated on the basis of 
monthly turnover and payable each month as per 
provisions in Schedule lllA. [Para 12] [178-A·B] 
B.S.E. Brokers' Forum v. Securities and Exchange 
B 
Board of India (2001) 3 SCC 482 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
c2001) 3 sec 482 
relied on 
Para 8 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
3548 of 2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2010 of the 
Securities Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 28 of 2009. 
D 
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Yashraj Singh Deora, Ms. Shreya 
Agrawal, G. Kalla, Ms. Priya Darshnee Singh, M/s. Mitter & 
. Mitter Co. for the Appellant. 
Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv., Dhaval Mehrotra, 
E Bhargava V. Desai, Ms. Saumya Mehrotra, Rishi Gautam, 
Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Anuj Sarma, 
Ms. Niharika, Ms. T. Mukherjee, M/s. K. J. Jonh & Co. for the 
Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. This is a statutory appeal 
preferred under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange 
Board of India Act, 1992 (for brevity 'the Act') against the 
judgment and order dated 11th February, 2010 passed by the 
G Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for brevity 'the SAT) 
in Appeal No. 28 of 2009. The dispute between the parties 
has arisen on account of amended Regulations effective from. 
1.10.2006 introducing Schedule lllA into the Regulations. For 
stock brokers the measure of fee under Schedule Ill was 
H 
OPG SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. v. S.E.B.I. &ANR. 
173 
. 
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
"turnover of the previous year" on yearly basis and the same A 
has been replaced by concept of monthly fee on the basis of 
monthly turnover. The dispute is whether the latter would come 
into effect immediately from the date Schedule lllA becomes 
applicable to a stock-broker or the earlier measure of fee on 
yearly basis would continue for a limited period till fee in B 
accordance with Schedule Ill and the principle of turnover of 
the whole year is realized not only as per the previous year's 
turnover but for the entire up to date turnover till Schedule lllA 
comes into effect in respect of a stock-broker. 
2. According to the impugned judgment and order of the . 
SAT, SEBI was justified in demanding registration fee from 
the appellant, a stock-broker, not only on the basis of turnover 
of the previous year but also for the entire turnover earned after 
c 
the turnover of the previous year and till the implementation of D 
the Schedule lllA, so that no part of the turnover of the stock-
broker escapes from the net of registration fee. According to 
appellant's case, argued by learned senior counsel Mr. Shyam 
Divan, such view of the SAT is impermissible in view of specific 
provisions of the Regulations, particularly clause (IV) to E 
Schedule Ill and whole of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.