SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA versus NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE MEMBERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 911 · Decided: 13-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
911
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
v.
NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE MEMBERS ASSOCIATION
AND ANR
(Civil Appeal No. 435 of 2007)
OCTOBER 13, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – s.12(1)
– Whether in terms of s.12(1), a single registration with SEBI is
sufficient even if the stock broker has various memberships and
functions from several stock exchanges and, therefore, will have to
pay the fee for the initial registration with SEBI – Held: The conjoint
reading of the expression “a certificate” as referred to in s.12(1) of
the Act, 1992 read with the scheme of Rules, 1992 and Regulations,
1992, leads to an inevitable conclusion that the stock broker not
only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each
of the stock exchange where he operates, at the same time, has to
pay ad valorem fee prescribed in terms of Part III annexed to
Regulation 10 of the Regulations, 1992 in reference to each
certificate of registration from SEBI in terms of the computation
prescribed under SEBI Circular dated 28th March, 2002 and fee is
to be paid as a guiding principle by the stock broker which is in
conformity with the scheme of Regulations 1992 – Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules,
1992 – Securities and Exchange Board of India(Stock Brokers and
Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992.
Interpretation of Statutes – True intention of the legislature –
Purposive interpretation – Held: A statute has to be construed
according to the intent that makes it – If a statutory provision is
open to more than one interpretation, it is always desirable of the
Court to choose the interpretation which represents the true intention
of the legislature – While interpreting the statutory provisions, the
Court is always supposed to keep in mind the object or purpose for
which the statute has been enacted.
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 911
911
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A statute has to be construed according to the
intent that makes it and it is always the duty of the Court to act
upon the true intention of the legislature. If a statutory provision
is open to more than one interpretation, it is always desirable of
the Court to choose the interpretation which represents the true
intention of the legislature. Also, to arrive at the intention of the
legislation, it is always depending on the objects for which the
enactment is made, the Court can resort to historical, contextual
and purposive interpretation leaving textual interpretation aside.
Thus, while interpreting the statutory provisions, the Court is
always supposed to keep in mind the object or purpose for which
the statute has been enacted. [Para 43][933-F-H]
2.1. The conjoint reading of the expression “a certificate”
as referred to in Section 12(1) of the Securities and Exchange
Board of India Act, 1992 read with the scheme of Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules,
1992 and Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers
and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992, leads to an inevitable
conclusion that the stock broker not only has to obtain a certificate
of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where
he operates, at the same time, has to pay ad valorem fee
prescribed in terms of Part III annexed to Regulation 10 of the
Regulations, 1992 in reference to each certificate of registration
from SEBI in terms of the computation prescribed under SEBI
Circular dated 28th March, 2002 and fee is to be paid as a guiding
principle by the stock broker which is in conformity with the
scheme of Regulations 1992. [Para 47][935-D-F]
2.2. So far as emphasis on the expression ‘date of initial
registration’ as referred to in Schedule III(I)(1)(c) is concerned,
it is in relation to a certificate of registration which has been
obtained by the stock broker from SEBI, which in turn is in relation
to the stock exchange of which he is a member. After the expiry
of five financial years from the date of initial registration, in
reference to the stock exchange, the fee has to be deposited for
the purpose of sixth financial year to keep his registration in force.
[Para 48][935-F-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. L.V.A.
Dixitulu and Others (1979) 2 SCC 34 : [1979]
1 SCR 26 – followed.
BSE Brokers’ Forum, Bombay and Others v. Securities
and Exchange Board of India 

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