Vinod Abrol vs Sebi

Date of Decision: 27.2.2019

Appeal No.341 of 2017

Vinod Abrol Flat No.3A, Durganiwas 622 Kharpali Road, Khar-West, Mumbai - 52. ..... Appellant

Versus

1.

Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.

Investor Service Cell Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Tower, Mumbai - 400 001.

2. R.R. Nabar & Co. Sharebrokers Pvt. Ltd.

Examiner Press Building, 31 Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400001. ...... Respondents

Mr. Vinod Abrol, Appellant-in-person.

Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate i/b. Khaitan & Co. for the Respondent no.1.

Mr. Ajay Khundhar, Advocate for the Respondent no.2.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)

1. We have heard the appellant in person. Mr. Manish Chhangani,

Advocate for BSE (Respondent no.1) and Mr. Ajay Khundhar,

Advocate for R.R. Nabar & Co. Sharebrokers Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent

no.2). The appellant is an investor in the capital market and

approached Respondent no.2 who is a broker for supplying certain 2

documents. Since the said documents were not supplied, the appellant

made a complaint to the BSE Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'BSE').

Since the complaint was not addressed, the appellant filed Appeal

no.225 of 2017 which was disposed of by an order dated 21st

September, 2017 directing BSE to decide the representation of the

appellant within four weeks. Based on the said direction, BSE by the

impugned order disposed of the representation/complaint. The

appellant being aggrieved by the order has filed the present appeal

contending that as per circular issued by Securities and Exchange

Board of India and the Bye-laws it was implicit that the complaint of

the appellant should have been forwarded to the Grievance Redressal

Mechanism Committee which in the instant case has not been done

and, therefore, the impugned order is patently erroneous and is liable

to be set aside. It was also submitted that in view of the Bye-laws 156

it was necessary for the stock broker to resolve the issue with the

appellant which again had not been done and, therefore, BSE should

take action under SEBI laws against the broker respondent no.2. It

was further contended that the certified copy of the three documents

sought for has not been given and that BSE in the impugned order has

incorrectly held that these documents have been supplied.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length

we find that the background leading to the present complaint stems

from a civil suit which is pending in the City Civil Court Bombay with

regard to 200 shares of Himmatsingka Seide Ltd. We also find that an

award has also been made by an arbitrator regarding refund of 200

shares of the same company which matter has travelled upto the 3

Supreme Court based on which the appellant has now paid money to

the broker. In so far as the grievance of the appellant is concerned that

the broker respondent no.2. should extend cooperation in resolving the

issue which is pending before the City Civil Court of Bombay under

Bye-law 156 of the Bye-laws we are of the opinion that such

cooperation cannot be given in the instant case in as much as a

separate stand has been taken by Respondent no.2 before City Civil

Court and extending any kind of cooperation or assistance under this

Bye-law to the appellant will jeopardize and affect his rights which he

has taken before the City Civil Court. Thus it is not open either to

BSE or to this Tribunal to direct the respondent no.2 to extent

cooperation under by Bye-law 156. The contention of the appellant in

this regard is patently misconceived and is rejected outrightly.

3. With regard to the request of obtaining a certified copy of the

documents we find that a request was made to Respondent no.2 to

which he did not respond. The BSE while deciding the complaint has

found that these documents were duly received by the complainant

namely, the appellant. This finding is apparently incorrect in as much

as the appellant had asked for a certified copy of the documents which

apparently had not been provided. In para 5.4 of the memorandum of

appeal, the appellant has clearly stated that he had requested for

certified copy of certain documents which has not been denied by

Respondent no.2 in his reply. Thus, we are of the opinion that the

documents sought for by the appellants should be supplied by

respondent no.2. to the appellant.

4

4. We accordingly dispose of the matter directing the respondent

no.2 to supply the certified copies of the documents as sought by the

appellant vide its letter dated 7th June, 2016 Exhibit G to the

memorandum of appeal within four weeks from today. In view of the

aforesaid parties will bear their own costs.

Sd/-

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

27.2.2019 Prepared and compared by RHN