Hybrid Financial Services Ltd vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.357 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the appellant does not press a claim for refund of listing fees already paid, the Tribunal will not adjudicate that claim. Where a grievance concerns charges levied by a stock exchange under its circular (interest on annual listing fees), the appellant must first raise the issue before the stock exchange by an appropriate application, and the Tribunal will not entertain it in the first instance. Where a grievance concerns excess amounts claimed by a depository (Respondent No.3), the appellant must first make an application before that authority, and the Tribunal will not decide the matter at first instance.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 19.4.2023
Misc. Application No.386 of 2023 And Misc. Application No.387 of 2023 And Appeal No.357 of 2023
Hybrid Financial Services Ltd. 104, 1st Floor, Sterling Centre, Opp. Divine Child High School, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093. ...Appellant
Versus
1.
BSE Ltd.
25th Floor, P.J. Towers, Dalal Street, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001.
2. Securities and Exchange Board of India Plot No.C4-A, G Block, Near Bank of India, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra.
3. Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. Maraton Futurex, A-Wing, 25th Floor, NM Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013. 2
4. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400051. ...Respondents
Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocate with Ms. Shefali Shankar, Ms. Rasika Ghate and Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Ishan Agrawal, Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate i/b. Nyaayam Associates for the Respondent No.4.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in
the filing of the appeal is condoned. The application is
allowed.
2. The appellant has prayed for the following relief:
"(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an Order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No.1 to refund the amount of Listing Fees & Interest claimed on the basis of the circular together with interest @12% per annum for the period of suspension as the Respondent 3
No.1 is also charging Reinstatement Fee based on number of years of suspension, vide email dated 10.11.2022 annexed as Exhibit "K" at Page No:47 of 51 with this Appeal Memo.
(b) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an Order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No:1 & 4 to Refund the Interest charged @12% per annum on outstanding listing fee based on the circular, as there were no services rendered by Respondent No:1 & 4 on account of suspension.
(c) To award such compensation as may be warranted for attaching disproportionate amount of security as compared to the alleged claim.
(d) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an Order or direction thereby directing to Refund of excess amount claimed by Respondent No:3 by not correcting the value of capital based on the Corporate Action form submitted in 2011.
(e) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to implement compulsory delisting of equity shares, 2009 guidelines for companies which has remained suspended for more than seven years unless sufficient cause provided.
(f) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondent no.2, to give appropriate directions on the entire matter as a number of companies are affected by the same who cannot bear such exorbitant & retributive cost.
4 (g) Such other relief which the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper."
3. Upon instructions taken from the appellant, the
learned counsel for the appellant states that he does not
wish to press the relief relating to refund of listing fee
already paid by them.
4. The learned counsel, however, contended that the
charging of interest at the rate of 12% by respondent
from the date of period of suspension is against the
circular Exhibit 'E' to the memo of appeal.
5. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the opinion
that the appellant should raise this issue before the
stock exchange itself by filing an appropriate
application.
6. For relief 9(d) claim is with regard to refund of
excess amount claimed by the Respondent No.3. In
this regard also we are of the opinion that the appellant
should make an application before the authority for the
aforesaid charge.
5
7. Considering the aforesaid, we dispose of the appeal
directing the appellant to make an appropriate
application before the stock Exchange which is
Respondent Nos.1 and 4 with regard to charging of
interest on annual listing fee. If such an application is
made the stock exchange will pass appropriate orders
within four weeks thereafter.
8. Insofar as the relief claimed from Respondent No.3
is concerned, the appellant shall make an appropriate
application before Respondent No.3 which application
shall be decided by Respondent No.3 within four
weeks thereafter. The appeal is accordingly disposed
of. Misc. Application No.387 of 2023 is also disposed
of accordingly.
9. This order will be digitally signed by the Private
Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned
parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy
of this order. Certified copy of this order is also 6
available from the Registry on payment of usual
charges.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member RAJALAKS Digitally signed by HMI RAJALAKSHMI
19.4.2023 HARISH HARISH NAIR NAIR Date: 2023.04.21 17:08:29 +05'30' RHN
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free