9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent to pay balance amount of Rs. 33,076/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from April 1, 2005 till final payment. 2. Facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal are as follows: (a) Respondent No. 1 is a holding company of ISE Securities and Services Limited. ISE Securities and Services Limited ("ISS" for short) is wholly owned subsidiary of the Respondent No. 1. b) On January 18, 1999 appellant was registered as a trading member of respondent subject to depositing Base Minimum Capital amount and other charges. Appellant was also registered as a sub-broker with ISS which enabled the appellant to execute trades on NSE & BSE through the trading terminal provided by ISS. c) On April 4, 2005 terminal of appellant who was carrying on business as a sub-broker from year 1999 was deactivated as the appellant failed to maintain minimum level of net worth inspite of several reminders. d) By letters dated April 5, 2005 and April 7, 2005 appellant requested respondent to release the amounts that were deposited as Base Minimum Capital and also by way of fixed deposits. e) It is not in dispute that though the trading terminal was deactivated on April 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect from June 29, 2011. j) Accordingly, the respondent by its letter dated August 2, 2011 intimated appellant about the cancellation of the membership of the appellant and forwarded a cheque for Rs. 66,924/- after deducting Rs. 33,076/- from the Base Minimum Capital deposit amount of Rs. 1 lac. Amount of Rs. 33,076/- deducted by respondent represented Rs. 13,788/- (inclusive of service tax) for each Financial Year 2009-2010 and Financial Year 2010-2011 plus interest on delayed payment of Rs. 5,500/- (Rs13,788 + Rs. 13788+ Rs. 5500 = Rs. 33,076) k) After receiving cheque for Rs. 66,924/- under protest, appellant have moved various authorities from time to time and ultimately has filed present appeal before this Tribunal seeking to challenge the amount of Rs. 33,076/- deducted by the respondent. 3. Mrs. Dina Parikh, appellant appearing in person submitted that on deactivating the terminal of the appellant in April 2005, business of the appellant came to stand still. Immediately thereafter on April 7, 2005 had sought refund of the amount deposited as Base Minimum Capital with the respondent. Since the said amount was not refunded, appellant met officers of respondent from time t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y submitting requisite documents on October 29, 2010 and December 2, 2010. It is relevant to note that appellant was repeatedly informed prior to and subsequent to making application for cancellation of membership, that payment of annual subscription fees for membership was mandatory. However, appellant failed and neglected to pay the same. In these circumstances, decision of the respondent in refunding the Base Minimum Capital amount on receiving approval of SEBI for cancellation of membership, after deducting the annual subscription amount payable upto the date of making application on October 29, 2010 (i.e., Financial Year 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) cannot be faulted. 9. First contention of appellant in seeking interest on the amount of Rs. 66,924/- already paid to the appellant is unjustified, because, the said amount has been paid on August 2, 2011 immediately after receiving approval from SEBI for cancellation of the registration of the appellant with effect from June 29, 2011. Since there is no undue delay in refunding that amount from the date of receiving approval of SEBI for cancellation of membership, appellant is not justified in demanding interest on the refunded amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09, is not justified in blaming the respondent in charging annual membership fees for the period from April 1, 2009 because, admittedly transfer deal did not go through and application of cancellation of membership was made on October 29, 2010. Instead of seeking approval for transfer of membership on February 9, 2009 if appellant had sought cancellation of membership by submitting requisite documents, then appellant would not have been required to pay membership fees for the period commencing from April 1, 2009, because, if transfer had taken place, appellant would not have been required to pay annual membership fees from April 1, 2009. Unfortunately, transfer of membership did not go trough and hence appellant chose to make application for cancellation of membership belatedly on October 29, 2010. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the decision of respondent in demanding annual membership fees till the date of appellant making application for cancellation of membership on October 29, 2010. 15. Reliance placed by appellant on orders passed in arbitration proceedings is wholly misplaced, because, firstly, in the arbitration proceedings claim of appellant in relation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
