SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs ICAP INDIA PVT. LTD.
Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Case number: C.A. No.-005275-005275 / 2006
Diary number: 27533 / 2006
Advocates: BHARGAVA V. DESAI Vs
E. C. AGRAWALA
Page 1
C.A.No.5275/06
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5275 OF 2006
Securities & Exchange Board of India …..Appellant
Versus
ICAP India Pvt. Ltd. …..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
1. This appeal under Section 15Z of the Securities &
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for brevity, ‘the SEBI Act’)
has been preferred by the Securities & Exchange Board of India
(for brevity, ‘the SEBI’) to challenge the judgment and order
dated 14.08.2006 passed by the learned Securities Appellate
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SAT’) in Appeal No.56 of
2004.
2. The substantial question of law falling for determination
involves interpretation of the term ‘annual turnover’ as it finds
mention in the Explanation after paragraph 3 of Schedule III to
the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers & Sub-
brokers) Regulations, 1992 (for brevity, ‘the Regulations’). The
aforesaid Explanation reads as follows :
1
Page 2
C.A.No.5275/06
“Explanation. – For the purpose of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, “annual turnover” means the aggregate of the sale and purchase prices of securities received and receivable by the stock broker on his own account as well as on account of his clients in respect of sale and purchase or dealing in securities during any financial year.”
3. The factual matrix may be noted only in brief. The
respondent is a stock broker in the wholesale debt market
segment of the National Stock Exchange and deals in debt
market securities. The stand of the respondent is that the price
of the dealt with securities would not form part of the concerned
broker’s ‘annual turnover’ and the same cannot be the basis for
computing the registration fee of stock brokers like the
respondent. This stand is based on a circular of Reserve Bank of
India (for brevity, ‘RBI’) dated June 20, 1992, issued with a view
to regulate the wholesale debt market. The dispute in respect of
quantum of registration fee demanded by the SEBI was brought
before the SAT by way of challenge to SEBI’s order dated
November 28, 2003 directing the respondent to pay
Rs.33,51,45,620/- towards principal and Rs.3,78,29,623/-
towards interest as on November 30, 2003. As noticed above the
SAT allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order
passed by SEBI vide its judgment and order under appeal.
2
Page 3
C.A.No.5275/06
4. The circular dated June 20, 1992 issued by RBI as a
regulator of the wholesale debt market is the basis for the SAT to
hold that for the permissible activity of bringing the parties
together, no amount is received or receivable by the stock broker
when he deals in the wholesale debt segment of the market and
therefore the definition of “annual turnover” for the purpose of
paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, as contained in the Explanation to
Paragraph 3 of Schedule III to the Regulations is not satisfied.
Before adverting to other relevant facts it is useful to notice the
relevant part of this circular which reads as under :
“III. DEALINGS THROUGH BROKERS
(i) If a deal is put through with the help of a broker, the role of the broker should be restricted to that of bringing the two parties to the deal together.
(ii) While negotiating the deal, the broker is not obliged to disclose the identity of the counterparty to the deal. However, on conclusion of the deal, he should disclose the counter party and his contract note should clearly indicate the name of the counterparty.
(iii) On the basis of the contract note disclosing the name of the counterparty, settlement of deals between banks, viz., both fund settlement and delivery of security, should be directly between the banks, and the broker should have no role to play in the process.
(iv) With the approval of their top managements, banks should prepare a panel of approved brokers which should be reviewed annually, or more often if so warranted. Clear-cut criteria should be laid down
3
Page 4
C.A.No.5275/06
for empanelment of brokers, including verification of their creditworthiness, market reputation, etc. A record of broker wise details of deals put through and brokerage paid, should be maintained.
(v) A disproportionate part of the business should not be transacted through only one or a few brokers. Banks should consider fixing aggregate contract limits for each of the approved brokers, and ensure that these limits are not exceeded.”
5. The stand of the appellants is that the SAT has mis-
interpreted the Explanation to paragraph 3 to hold that the
“turnover” for purpose of fee will not be the value of the stocks
under transaction but only the value of brokerage earned by the
stock brokers like the respondent. According to Mr. C.U. Singh,
learned senior counsel for the SEBI the respondent is bound by
the provisions of the SEBI Act, the rules framed thereunder as
well as the Regulations. The law does not permit any one to act
as a stock broker either in respect of shares in the equities
segment or the Government securities in the wholesale debt
segment until he is registered with the SEBI. Such registered
broker has to pay the prescribed fee as per Schedule III of the
Regulations. He highlighted clause 1(bb)(ii) of Schedule III which
was inserted by the Amendment Regulations of 2002 w.e.f.
February 20, 2002. It is the case of the appellant that clause
1(bb)(ii) was introduced in the Regulations because the SEBI
accepted the Bhatt Committee’s recommendations for fixing a
4
Page 5
C.A.No.5275/06
lower rate of fees for transactions in bonds and securities. The
lower rate for transactions in bonds and Government securities
was on account of comparative higher value of such transactions
leading to higher turnover and that justified imposition of lower
rate of fees. The grievance of the appellant is that the SAT did
not consider such clear substantive provision and its history
while interpreting the Explanation in a manner which amounts
to doing violence to the main provision itself. Learned counsel
for the appellant also referred to judgment of this Court in the
case of B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum v. Securities & Exchange Board
of India (2001) 3 SCC 482 and pointed out that in paragraph 43
the Court noted that the petitioners of that case had strongly
relied upon the Report submitted by the Bhatt Committee.
Further in paragraph 47 the Court rejected the contention of the
petitioners after noticing the recommendations of the Bhatt
Committee to the effect that “on Government securities, PSU
bonds and units, the turnover will have to be calculated
separately and a fee of 1000th of 1% may be charged on such
turnover than the present scale of 100th of 1%.” Thereafter the
Court observed that the Board was bound to bring about the
corresponding changes so as to remove the anomalies pointed
out by the Committee. It also noted that the Board or the SEBI
had accepted the recommendations and they would be
5
Page 6
C.A.No.5275/06
incorporated in the Regulations. The Court concluded that
subject to the recommendations of the Bhatt Committee to be
incorporated in the Regulations, the challenge made to the levy
based on the measure of turnover had to be rejected.
6. On behalf of appellant it was further pointed out that
through Notification No.S.O. 184(E) issued by the SEBI and
Notification No.S.O.(E) issued by RBI, both dated March 01,
2000 it was made clear that all contracts for sale or purchase of
Government securities when entered into through recognized
stock exchanges, would be subject to the SEBI Act, Securities
Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 as well as rules, regulations,
bye-laws and circulars made under those Acts. It was also
pointed out that Section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts
(Regulation) Act, 1956 defines “securities” to include not only
Government securities but also rights or interests in securities.
Hence, according to appellant the physical receipt of securities or
payments is not necessary. It was further contended on behalf
of appellant that the circular of RBI of 1992 cannot affect the
statutory regime governing fees payable by a registered broker to
the SEBI as per provisions in the Regulations. Lastly it was
submitted that the appellant has calculated and demanded the
fee as per clause 1(b) instead of clause 1(bb) because the
respondent did not disclose details of its different transactions.
6
Page 7
C.A.No.5275/06
7. On behalf of appellant reliance was placed upon judgment
of this Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax
Officer, Ernakulam (1981) 4 SCC 173 to highlight various
principles relating to interpretation of statutes. In particular,
reliance was placed upon the principle that plain meaning or
literal construction may not be relied upon if it results in
absurdity, injustice and unconstitutionality. In such a situation
Court should construe the real meaning having regard to the
object and purpose behind enacting the provision as well as the
context of the setting in which it occurs and with a view to
suppress the mischief sought to be remedied by the Legislature.
8. In reply Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior advocate
submitted that in the case of B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum this Court
upheld the validity of the registration fees levied by the SEBI but
there was no occasion in that case to interpret the term
‘turnover’ as defined through the Explanation. He also referred
to an Explanation to clause 2 of Schedule IV of the Regulations
only for comparing the two Explanations and pointing out that
while laying down the Schedule of Fees to be paid by the Trading
or Clearing Member or Self Clearing Member the expression
‘annual turnover’ has been defined differently so as to take into
account “the aggregate value of all trades executed by the
trading member …..”. By placing reliance upon pleadings of the
7
Page 8
C.A.No.5275/06
SEBI, the view taken by the SAT in the impugned judgment was
sought to be supported further on the ground that in respect of
wholesale debt market SEBI merely ‘monitors’ and does not
‘regulate’ and therefore there can be no justification to include
the entire value of stocks in the turnover for calculating the
registration fee. It was conceded however that the wholesale
debt market was considerably widened in 2003 and SEBI may
claim that it is required to regulate the wholesale debt market
from 2003 onwards but that should not affect the present case
which is related to an earlier period, only upto December 2002.
Mr. Bhushan took us through the documents and pleadings to
counter the allegation that respondent did not disclose the
details and particulars of its business deals/accounts.
According to him, it is admitted in the inspection report that the
respondent dealt only in the wholesale debt market segment.
9. On behalf of respondent reliance was placed upon case of
Income-tax Officer, Alleppey v. I.M.C. Ponnoose AIR 1970 SC
385 and case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi
Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720 in support of a well established
proposition of law that unless the Statute empowers the
concerned authority to make a rule or regulation with
retrospective effect, such authority cannot make a rule,
regulation or bye-law with retrospective effect.
8
Page 9
C.A.No.5275/06
10. Lastly it was pointed out from the materials on record that
respondent had raised several other grounds for objecting to the
impugned action of the SEBI but the SAT allowed respondent’s
appeal on the basis of interpretation of the term ‘annual
turnover’ and did not deal with other grounds.
11. We do not find any merit in the contention advanced on
behalf of the respondent that the Explanation under clause 2 of
Schedule IV can be used in contradistinction of differently
worded Explanation under paragraph 3 of Schedule III to
support the interpretation of the term ‘annual turnover’ given by
the SAT. While Schedule III relates to Regulation 10 which
governs fees to be paid by the stock broker or sub-broker,
Schedule IV relates to Regulation 16G(1) which governs fees to
be paid by the Trading or Clearing Member or Self Clearing
Member of Derivatives Exchange/ Derivatives Segment/ Clearing
Corporation/ Clearing House. In such a situation, in our view,
the term ‘annual turnover’ has to be understood only in the light
of Schedule III and its contents including the relevant
Explanation.
12. On a careful analysis of the Explanation occurring after
paragraph 3 of Schedule III and the definition of ‘annual
turnover’ contained therein as also the reasonings in the
impugned order we are constrained to hold that the SAT has
9
Page 10
C.A.No.5275/06
erred in limiting the annual turnover of the respondent only to
the amount of brokerage earned by it. The earning by way of
brokerage represents only the part of price of securities received
by the stock broker on his own account. The other and more
significant part of the ‘annual turnover’ as per the Explanation is
the aggregate of the sale and purchase prices of securities,
received or receivable by the stock broker on account of his
clients in respect of sale and purchase or dealing in securities
during the financial year. The view taken by the SAT that since
in the wholesale debt market segment the broker has a limited
role as per the RBI circular and since the broker does not receive
the sale or purchase price because the payment is directly made
to the seller, the broker will be saved from inclusion of the sale
and purchase prices in his annual turnover, suffers from an
apparent error. The error lies in not appreciating that the
component of aggregate of sale and purchase prices which is
receivable by the stock broker even on account of his clients is
included in the annual turnover. Such sale and purchase price
receivable by the stock broker on account of his clients, under
the directions of the RBI through the circular dated June 20,
1992 presently goes directly to the seller but it is of no
significance. Even if such sale and purchase price had actually
been received by the stock broker not on his own account but on
10
Page 11
C.A.No.5275/06
account of his clients, it could not belong to the broker and had
to be passed on to the seller because such amount was
receivable clearly on account of his clients in contradistinction to
any part of sale and purchase price received or receivable by the
stock broker on his own account. Thus viewed, the annual
turnover of the stock broker as per the Explanation must include
the value of entire transaction for the purpose of computing the
registration fee as per Schedule III of the Regulations. In no case
the term ‘annual turnover’ can be so interpreted as to mean only
the amount earned by the stock broker by way of brokerage.
13. The same conclusion will emerge on considering the
legislative history leading to insertion of clause 1(bb) in Schedule
III whereby transactions in Government securities, bonds issued
by any public sector undertaking and the units, traded in a
similar manner were placed in a separate category for which the
fee is kept at a much lower rate of 1000th of 1% of the turnover.
The SAT erred in not considering the obvious purpose of such a
provision brought through an amendment in the light of
recommendations of the Bhatt Committee which had received
not only approval of the SEBI but also of this Court as per
judgment in the case of B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum.
14. So far as defence of the respondent that in the wholesale
debt market segment, at least prior to 2003, the SEBI was
11
Page 12
C.A.No.5275/06
required only to ‘monitor’ and not to ‘regulate’ such market
cannot cut any ice because the provisions relating to registration
fee by the SEBI have already been held valid and in the present
proceedings there is no challenge to the relevant provisions
including those in Schedule III of the Regulations. As already
noted, in the case of B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum this Court directed
the SEBI to incorporate the relevant recommendations of the
Bhatt Committee in the Regulations and as a result the rate of
fee on Government securities etc. dealt in the wholesale debt
market was lowered and pegged at 1/10th in comparison to fees
payable by the stock brokers in other segment.
15. In view of the above discussions and the interpretation of
the term ‘annual turnover’ indicated by us earlier, we are
constrained to hold the impugned order passed by the SAT as
erroneous in law. It is accordingly set aside. There is a
consensus that in case the impugned judgment and order is set
aside, the matter deserves to be remanded back so that other
grounds earlier raised by the respondent may now be considered
by the SAT in accordance with law. For that purpose the matter
is remitted back to the SAT for deciding the other relevant issues
and grounds as per law at an early date, preferably within six
months. The appeal thus stands allowed to the extent indicated
above. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to
12
Page 13
C.A.No.5275/06
costs. The amount of Rs.2.9 crores deposited by the SEBI with
the Registry has been invested in an interest bearing account
and the FDR is due to mature on 30.11.2015. As soon as the
amount matures, the same should be refunded to the SEBI
without any delay.
…………………………………….J. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
..…………………………………..J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH] New Delhi. November 24, 2015.
13