Bombay High Court
C. R. JAIN AND CO.versusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The High Court held that there was no jurisdictional infirmity in the Tribunal’s order and that the petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal under Section 15‑Z, so the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, a former stock broker, challenged SEBI's demand for registration fees and the subsequent recovery of Rs.38.63 lakh by the Delhi Stock Exchange. He filed Appeal No. 298 of 2019 before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which was disposed of together with five other appeals on the premise that the disputes were settled, despite the petitioner’s claim that no settlement was reached in his case. The petitioner sought restoration of his appeal through a writ petition under Article 227, arguing a violation of natural justice and a manifest error by the Tribunal. SEBI contended that the writ petition was not maintainable and that the appropriate remedy was an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 15‑Z of the SEBI Act. The High Court held that the Tribunal’s order did not constitute a jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice, that the statutory appellate remedy under Section 15‑Z remained available, and that the petition sought to relitigate a matter already decided. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to restore an appeal disposed of by the Securities Appellate Tribunal on the ground of alleged settlement error
- Whether the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 15‑Z of the SEBI Act to appeal the Tribunal's order to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Tribunal's order amounts to a jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or a mere error of law warranting interference
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Article 227
- supervisory jurisdiction
- Securities Appellate Tribunal
- Section 15-Z
- appeal to Supreme Court
- natural justice
- stock broker registration fees
- SEBI
Judgment
WP/5450/2023
C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5450 OF 2023
C. R. Jain & Co. }
(A Sole Proprietorship concern of }
Mrs. Chand Rani Jain) }
142-B, Katra Mashru, Dariba Kalan, }
Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110006. } … Petitioner
V/s.
1. Union of India }
Through Ministry of Finance, }
3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, }
Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001. }
2. The Securities & Exchange Board of India }
C4-A, ‘G’ Block Bandra-Kurla Complex, }
Mumbai – 400051. }
3. Securities Appellate Tribunal }
Through its Registry, }
Earnest House, Nepa Marg, }
Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400021. } ... Respondents
___________________________________________________________________
Mr. Neerav Merchant i/b Thakurdas and Madgavkar for Petitioner.
Mr. Ashutosh Misra for Respondent No. 1 – UOI.
Ms. Gulnar Mistry a/w Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Ms. Khushbu Chhajed, Mr. Pulkit
Awasthi i/b MDP Legal for Respondent No. 2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 29th JULY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 6th AUGUST 2026
___________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 6th August 2026
WP/5450/2023
C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.
ORDER (Per Farhan P. Dubash, J):
1. The present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks a
direction to Respondent No. 3 / the Securities Appellate Tribunal (“the
Tribunal”) to restore Appeal No. 298 of 2019 preferred by the Petitioner
against Respondent No. 2 / the Securities and Exchange Board of India
(“SEBI”).
2. The Petitioner’s grievance is that Appeal No. 298 of 2019, though distinct
from five other connected appeals, came to be disposed of by a common order
dated 27th September 2021 (“the impugned order”) on an erroneous premise
that the disputes stood settled. According to the Petitioner, while settlement
proposals had been exchanged in relation to the other appeals, no settlement
had ever been arrived at in respect of its appeal.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The facts, to the extent necessary for deciding the present Petition, are briefly
stated thus:
(i) The Petitioner is an erstwhile member of M/s Delhi Stock Exchange
Association Ltd. (“DSE”) and was registered with SEBI as a stock
broker under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
(“the Act”).
(ii) Pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock
Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992, SEBI became entitled
Page 2 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 6th August 2026
WP/5450/2023
C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.
to levy registration fees upon stock brokers on the basis of their
turnover. By Circular dated 28 th March 2002, SEBI directed stock
brokers to furnish turnover particulars, duly certified by their
auditors, to DSE, which was required to verify and forward the same
to SEBI.
(iii) On the basis of the turnover particulars so received, SEBI prepared
fee liability statements and called upon stock brokers to pay the
registration fees together with interest. The Petitioner claims to have
paid the registration fees for the financial years 1991-92 to 1995-96.
(iv) According to the Petitioner, SEBI, relying upon erroneous turnover
figures, raised a demand of Rs.19,09,154/- (inclusive of interest) in
the year 2004. The Petitioner objected to the said demand, but no
decision was taken thereon for several years.
(v) In the year 2016, SEBI recovered a sum of Rs.38,63,926/- from DSE
towards the Petitioner’s alleged outstanding registration fee liability
together with accrued interest. Consequent thereto, DSE appropriated
the Petitioner’s fixed deposits aggregating Rs.38,64,927/-.
(vi) Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred Appeal No.298 of 2019
before the Tribunal seeking refund of Rs.38,63,926/- together with
interest and costs.
(vii) Five other members of DSE had also preferred Appeal Nos. 317 of
2018, 387 of 2018, 433 of 2018, 487 of 2018 and 299 of 2019 against
SEBI seeking substantially similar reliefs. All six appeals were heard
together.
(viii) During the pendency of the appeals, SEBI, by email dated 14 th
Page 3 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 6th August 2026
WP/5450/2023
C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.
January 2021, offered to refund the registration fees recovered from
the appellants in the other five appeals. No such proposal was
extended to the Petitioner.
(ix) By email dated 8th May 2021, SEBI informed the Petitioner that there
was no proposal for settlement in Appeal No. 298 of 2019 and that his
appeal would proceed on merits.
(x) By the impugned order dated 27th September 2021, the Tribunal
disposed of all six appeals by directing SEBI to determine the
quantum refundable, if any, to each of the appellants and to DSE.
(xi) Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No.
1201 of 2021 seeking recall of the impugned order and restoration of
Appeal No. 298 of 2019. By order dated 27 th October 2021, the
Tribunal dismissed the application observing that such relief could
not be granted in a modification application.
(xii) Review Application No.31 of 2021 thereafter preferred by the
Petitioner also came to be dismissed by order dated 20 th December
2021.
(xiii) Pursuant to the directions contained in the impugned order, SEBI
reconsidered the Petitioner’s case and addressed a communication
dated 27th January 2022 to the Petitioner.
(xiv) In the said communication, SEBI referred to its earlier order dated
10th August 2009 suspending the Petitioner’s certificate of
registration, the order of remand passed by the Tribunal, and the
subsequent order dated 23rd June 2011 whereby SEBI held that the
Petitioner’s registration fees had been correctly computed with
Page 4 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 6th August 2026
WP/5450/2023
C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.
reference to the applicable date of registration and directed that the
suspension would continue until the outstanding fees were paid.
(xv) SEBI further recorded that the Petitioner had neither discharged the
outstanding fee liability nor challenged the order dated 23 rd June 2011
and had, therefore, accepted the same.
(xvi) SEBI accordingly concluded that the registration fees had been
correctly computed and recovered and that neither the Petitioner nor
DSE was entitled to any refund.
(xvii) The Petitioner thereafter filed Miscellaneous Application No. 181 of
2022, which was dismissed on 4 th March 2022, followed by Review
Application No. 9 of 2022, which also came to be dismissed on 29 th
July 2022.
(xviii) Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has invoked the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER
4. Mr. Neerav Merchant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner,
submits that the Tribunal committed a manifest error in disposing of Appeal
No.298 of 2019 along with the other appeals on the erroneous premise that the
disputes had been settled. According to him, the impugned order was passed
mechanically and in breach of the principles of natural justice.
5. Mr. Merchant submits that even SEBI had, during the proceedings before the
Tribunal, acknowledged that no settlement had been arrived at in respect of
Page 5 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 6th August 2026
WP/5450/2023
C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.
Appeal No. 298 of 2019. Despite this, he contends that the Tribunal proceeded
to erroneously dispose of the Petitioner’s appeal along with the remaining
appeals.
6. He further submits that grave prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner since
DSE continues to retain fixed deposits aggregating Rs.38,63,926/- towards the
amount recovered by SEBI.
7. Mr. Merchant further submits that the Petitioner exhausted every remedy
available before the Tribunal by filing miscellaneous as well as review
applications. According to him, since Appeal No. 298 of 2019 came to be
disposed of under a mistaken premise through no fault of the Petitioner, the
balance of convenience warrants restoration of the appeal for adjudication on
merits.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 - SEBI
8. Per contra, Ms. Gulnar Mistry, learned counsel appearing for SEBI, raises a
preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Writ Petition. She
submits that no substantive relief has been claimed against SEBI and that the
challenge is essentially directed against the orders passed by the Tribunal.
9. Ms. Mistry submits that the present Writ Petition is an attempt to circumvent
the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 15-Z of the Act.
According to her, if the Petitioner was aggrieved by the orders passed by the
Tribunal, the appropriate remedy was to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court, which admittedly has not been done.
Page 6 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 6th August 2026
WP/5450/2023
C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.
10. She further submits that SEBI has duly complied with the directions contained
in the impugned order by reconsidering the Petitioner’s case and issuing the
communication dated 27th January 2022. Upon such reconsideration, SEBI
concluded that the registration fees had been correctly computed and
recovered and that no refund was payable to the Petitioner.
11. Ms. Mistry is at pains to point out that the Tribunal has finally adjudicated the
matter and has become functus officio. The miscellaneous applications and
review applications preferred by the Petitioner having also been dismissed, no
further cause survives before the Tribunal.
ANALYSIS , REASONS AND FINDINGS
12. We have considered the pleadings, the impugned order, the contemporaneous
correspondence exchanged between the parties and the rival submissions
advanced on their behalf.
13. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the present
Writ Petition discloses any ground warranting interference in the exercise of
this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, particularly when Section 15-Z of the Act provides a statutory remedy
of appeal against an order of the Tribunal. However, before examining the
rival submissions, it would be convenient to reproduce the provisions of
Section 15-Z of the Act:
15-Z Appeal to Supreme Court - Any person aggrieved by any
decision or order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal may le an
appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of
Page 7 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 6th August 2026
WP/5450/2023
C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.
communication of the decision or order of the Securities Appellate
Tribunal to him on any question of law arising out of such order:
Provided that the Supreme Court may, if it is satis ed that the
appellant was prevented by su"cient cause from ling the appeal
within the said period, allow it to be led within a further period not
exceeding sixty days.
14. The preliminary objection raised by SEBI merits serious consideration. The
reliefs sought in the present Writ Petition are directed entirely against the
impugned order of the Tribunal and the subsequent orders passed on the
Petitioner’s miscellaneous and review applications. In substance, the Petitioner
seeks restoration of Appeal No. 298 of 2019 and a rehearing thereof. Granting
such relief would necessarily require this Court to reopen and reconsider
orders passed by the Tribunal after hearing the parties.
15. The Petitioner’s principal contention is that Appeal No. 298 of 2019 was
disposed of on an erroneous assumption that the dispute stood settled,
notwithstanding that no settlement had been arrived at in relation to the
Petitioner’s appeal. Reliance is placed upon SEBI’s email dated 8 th May 2021
stating that no settlement proposal existed in respect of Appeal No. 298 of
2019 and that the appeal would proceed on merits. Reliance is also placed
upon SEBI’s subsequent communication dated 27th January 2022, wherein it
observed that the Petitioner’s case arose out of a dispute regarding the date of
registration and therefore stood on a different footing from the other appeals.
16. Whilst the aforesaid documents indicate that the Petitioner’s appeal was
distinguishable from the remaining appeals, they however, cannot be read
divorced from the impugned order. The Tribunal expressly recorded SEBI’s
submission that the Petitioner’s case stood on a different footing and also
noticed the rival contentions regarding the amount, if any, refundable to the
Page 8 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 6th August 2026
WP/5450/2023
C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.
appellants and to DSE. Having observed that the controversy had not been
completely resolved, the Tribunal directed SEBI to determine the quantum
refundable, if any, in respect of each appellant. Read as a whole, therefore, the
impugned order cannot be characterised as having been passed mechanically
or in violation of the principles of natural justice.
17. In our considered view, the challenge mounted by the Petitioner is directed
essentially against the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Tribunal
and not against the decision-making process itself. The impugned order
records the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, notices the
respective stands regarding the Petitioner’s entitlement and thereafter directs
SEBI to determine the quantum of refund, if any, payable to each of the
appellants. The record also indicates that the Petitioner was represented before
the Tribunal and was afforded full opportunity of hearing. The fact that the
Tribunal ultimately did not accept the Petitioner’s case, or that the Petitioner
considers the decision to be erroneous, cannot, by itself, constitute either a
jurisdictional error or a violation of the principles of natural justice warranting
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Such a grievance is in
substance, one directed against the correctness of the decision on merits, for
which the statute itself provides an appellate remedy.
18. It is also material to note that, after the impugned order came to be passed, the
Petitioner repeatedly invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal itself by filing
Miscellaneous Application No. 1201 of 2021, Review Application No. 31 of
2021, Miscellaneous Application No. 181 of 2022 and Review Application
No. 9 of 2022. Each of those proceedings culminated in orders rejecting the
relief sought by the Petitioner. Thus, the Tribunal had more than one occasion
to consider the Petitioner’s grievance that Appeal No. 298 of 2019 had been
Page 9 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 6th August 2026
WP/5450/2023
C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.
disposed of under a misconception. Having failed before the Tribunal on each
occasion, the Petitioner now seeks, in substance, to reopen the very same
controversy in the exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
19. Moreover, the record reveals that the impugned order has since been acted
upon. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Tribunal, SEBI reconsidered the
Petitioner’s case and, by its communication dated 27 th January 2022, recorded
that the registration fees had been correctly computed and recovered and that
no refund was payable to the Petitioner. Thus, the directions contained in the
impugned order have already been implemented and have culminated in a
fresh determination by SEBI.
20. Significantly, the aforesaid determination/communication dated 27 th January
2022 has not been assailed in the present proceedings. Even assuming that the
Petitioner were to succeed in its challenge to the impugned order, the
consequential determination rendered by SEBI pursuant thereto would
continue to operate unless separately set aside in accordance with law. The
relief sought in the present Petition, namely restoration of Appeal No. 298 of
2019, therefore, would not by itself efface the subsequent determination or
afford the Petitioner any effective relief. This is an additional circumstance
which persuades us not to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction.
21. Apart from the above, Section 15-Z of the Act provides a specific statutory
remedy by way of an appeal to the Supreme Court against any decision or
order of the Tribunal involving a question of law. The challenge in the present
Writ Petition is essentially directed against the correctness of the orders passed
by the Tribunal and does not disclose any patent jurisdictional error, perversity
Page 10 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 6th August 2026
WP/5450/2023
C. R. Jain & Co. vs. UOI & Ors.
or failure of natural justice warranting interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. It is well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction of this
Court is intended to keep subordinate Tribunals within the bounds of their
authority and is not to be exercised as a substitute for a statutory appellate
remedy.
22. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, namely, absence of any jurisdictional
infirmity in the impugned order, availability of the statutory appellate remedy
under Section 15-Z which the Petitioner has admittedly not invoked, rejection
of the Petitioner’s miscellaneous and review applications by the Tribunal and
the fact that the impugned order has already been implemented and the
consequential determination has not been challenged, we are not persuaded to
exercise our supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
23. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R. I. CHAGLA J. )
Shubham Gadhavepatil
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SHESHRAO
SHESHRAO GADHAVEPATIL
GADHAVEPATIL Date:
2026.08.06
15:05:36 +0530
Page 11 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 6th August 2026
Checking your session…