9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1470 - AT - SEBIIllegal recovery of fee by the SEBI - seeking refund of the principal amount and also interest accrued on it - as urged that the deposit was made by the appellant under protest and since the appellant had succeeded in his claim the principal amount was liable to be refunded alongwith interest - appellant did not claim the relief of interest while seeking the refund of fee liability - HELD THAT - The appellant before the Tribunal had prayed for refund of fee liability. No refund for interest was claimed. The appellant did not claim the relief of interest even before the Supreme Court. In the second round of litigation, the appellant cannot now claim the relief of interest. The claim of interest flows from the same cause of action, namely, the refund of fee liability. In view of the aforesaid, since the appellant did not claim the relief of interest while seeking the refund of fee liability, the appellant is now barred by principle of Order II Rule 2 of CPC from claiming the refund of interest. In the light of the aforesaid, it is not necessary for the Court to dwell on the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent on the question of res judicata and constructive res judicata . The claim of interest was rightly rejected by the respondent.
Issues:
1. Transfer of SEBI registration from one entity to another. 2. Claim for fee continuity benefit. 3. Challenge of SEBI's denial of fee continuity benefit. 4. Claim for refund of principal amount and interest. 5. Legal obligation for refund of principal amount and interest. 6. Application of Order II Rule 2 of CPC. 7. Claim for interest on principal amount. 1. Transfer of SEBI registration from one entity to another: The appellant, a corporate member registered with NSE, transferred its registration to another group company due to incompatibility with fund-based activities. This transfer led to a claim for fee continuity benefit. 2. Claim for fee continuity benefit: The appellant contended that SEBI accepted fee payments without objections until 2003-04. However, in 2004, SEBI demanded fees separately for both entities, resulting in a total amount claim of ?31,81,506. The appellant made the payment under protest. 3. Challenge of SEBI's denial of fee continuity benefit: The appellant challenged SEBI's denial of fee continuity benefit before the Tribunal, which initially dismissed the appeal. However, the Supreme Court overturned the Tribunal's decision, directing SEBI to grant the benefit of fee continuity to the appellant. 4. Claim for refund of principal amount and interest: Following the Supreme Court's judgment, the appellant sought a refund of the amount paid under protest along with interest. SEBI refunded a portion, and the appellant applied for the remaining amount and interest, which was rejected by SEBI. 5. Legal obligation for refund of principal amount and interest: The appellant argued that SEBI was legally obligated to refund the principal amount along with interest since the deposit was made under protest and the appellant succeeded in their claim. 6. Application of Order II Rule 2 of CPC: The Tribunal analyzed the application of Order II Rule 2 of CPC, emphasizing that all reliefs must be claimed in the initial suit. The appellant did not claim interest on the principal amount in the previous litigations. 7. Claim for interest on principal amount: The appellant contended for interest on the principal amount, while SEBI argued that no relief for interest was claimed previously, and thus, the appellant could not claim it in subsequent litigations. The Tribunal held that the appellant was barred by the principle of Order II Rule 2 of CPC from claiming interest. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing that the appellant's failure to claim interest in previous litigations barred them from seeking it later. The application of Order II Rule 2 of CPC was crucial in determining the outcome, emphasizing the importance of claiming all reliefs in the initial suit to avoid multiple litigations for the same cause of action.
|
