Sandeep Kishore & Sons Huf vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 62 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Investor Protection Fund Committee of a stock exchange, in assessing a claim, may not take into account disputed trades that are the subject of an internal dispute between the claimant and the broker; such a dispute must be pursued through the remedy available elsewhere, and a claim is properly rejected where, excluding those trades, the claimant's amount payable exceeds the amount receivable from the broker.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 18.01.2023
Misc. Application No. 1707 of 2022 And Appeal No. 62 of 2023
Sandeep Kishore & Sons HUF D-20, Indra Enclave, Neb Sarai, Delhi- 110 068 ...Appellant
Versus
National Stock Exchange of India Limited Exchange Plaza, C-1, Block 'G', Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 ...Respondent
Mr. Zubin Sheth, Advocate with Ms. Priyanshi Bathia, Advocate i/b Y & A Legal, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rashid Boatwalla, Ms. Samiksha Rajput and Mr. Juan D'Souza, Advocates i/b MKA & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
The appellant filed a claim under the Investor Protection
Fund before the Members and Core Settlement Guarantee Fund 2
Committee ("Committee" for convenience) of the National
Stock Exchange of India Limited ("NSEIL" for convenience)
which was rejected by an order dated November 01, 2022.
2. The Committee found that the amount payable by the
claimant i.e. appellant was higher than the amount to be
received by him from Anugrah Stock & Broking Pvt. Ltd.
("Anugrah"). Since there was a negative balance in the ledger
account of Anugrah, the claim was found to be inadmissible and
accordingly the claim petition was rejected.
3. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that
certain trades executed by Anugrah were unauthorized and
therefore such trades cannot be taken into consideration.
4. We are of the opinion, that disputed trades cannot be
considered by the Committee. This is an internal dispute
between the appellant and the broker for which the remedy lies
elsewhere. The claim application was rightly rejected by the
Committee.
5. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Misc. Application is
disposed of accordingly.
3
6. 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 available from the Registry on payment of
usual charges.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member 18.01.2023 PRERNA by PRERNA Digitally signed
PK MANISH MANISH KHARE Date: 2023.01.19 KHARE 10:31:44 +05'30'
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