Holding

The Regulations do not permit succession to registration; the appellant must obtain fresh registration and pay the turnover‑linked fee for the first five years, after which the flat fee applies, and the fee continuity benefit is not available on transmission.

Summary

The appellant, son of a deceased stock‑broker who was a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange, claimed that the partnership firm he joined should enjoy the "fee continuity benefit" under the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub‑Brokers) Regulations, 1992, arguing that the business continued under the same name and membership number. SEBI contended that the regulations contain no provision for inheritance of membership or fee continuity on transmission, and that any successor must obtain fresh registration and pay the turnover‑linked fee for the first five years, thereafter the flat Rs 5,000 fee. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the SEBI Act, the Regulations and the Bombay Stock Exchange Rules, concluding that membership is a privilege, not a right, and is not inheritable. Consequently, the fee continuity benefit is available only in the specific case of conversion to a corporate entity, not on transmission. The Court held that the appellant must register anew and pay the applicable fees, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a stock‑broker’s membership and the associated fee continuity benefit can be inherited by a son/partner on transmission.
Whether the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub‑Brokers) Regulations, 1992 provide for succession to registration and fee continuity in cases of inheritance.
Whether SEBI has the discretion to waive the fresh registration fee in such circumstances.

Legislation cited

SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Regulations, 1992s. Regulation 10, s. Regulation 4, s. Schedule III
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992s. 12, s. 15Z

Subjects

fee continuity benefitSEBI regulationsstock broker registrationinheritance of membershippartnership firmBombay Stock Exchangesecurities law

Judgment

[2008) 8 S.C.R. 946

A NIKHIL KANCHANALA LVAKHARIA -1 -
v..
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND
ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 4210 Of 2006)
B MAY 15, 2008
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DALVEER BHANDARl,JJ]
~
SEBI (STOCK BROKERS AND .SUB-BROKERS)
c REGULATIONS, 1992:
Regulation 10,Schedule Ill, para 4-"Fee continuity ben-
efit"-Son of a member df stock exchange claiming benefit
stating that on being nominated in the partnership firm by his
father, he, as a member of the partnership firm was entitled to
D "fee continuity benefit"-Held: Father of claimant and not the
firm was member of the stock exchange and, as such, the
claimant would not be entitled to the benefit - SEBI (Stock-
Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules, 1992 - rr. 4 and 10 - Secu-
rities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - s. 15Z.
E The appellant claimed that his father was a member
of the Bombay Stock Exchange and was carrying on the
business of stock-broker in the name of a stock broking
firm; that his father, because of his ill health, nominated
him in his place as a member of the Stock Exchange, and
F thus, he became a partner of the firm; that the Securities
and Exchange Board of India should give the benefit of
fee continuity to the firm, as for the first five years the
Board had already charged from the partnership on turn-
over basis. TIJerefore, the firm should thereafter be
G charged on the flat rate of Rs 5000/- per annum for the
registration. The case of the appellant was that on ac-
count of transmission since the business and trade con- "
tinued in the same name or entity and the stock exchange
permitted continuation of the same membership under the
H 946
NIKHIL KANCHANALA LVAKHARIA v. SECURITIES 947
AND BOARD OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

~1 same number and clearing code, they should be given A
the benefit under the same registration of the earlier stock
broker as also the benefit of fee continuity. The claim of
the appellant was rejected. The instant appeal was filed
u/s 15Z of the SEBI Act, 1992. The other appeals were filed
in the similar situation. .f3
The appeal was contested by the SEBI on the ground,
inter alia, that there was no provision in the SEBI Act, Rules,
and/or Regulations of the SEBI which recognized regis-
tration of stock brokers by inheritance and/or transmis-
sion for the purpose of granting fee continuity bene_fit. C
The appellant who was son of the stock broker could, on
transmission, be registered only as a new stock broker
with SEBI in accordance with the Act, Regulations and
the Rules, and subject to payment of registration fee for a
new stock - broker as per the Schedule fixed in the Regu- D
lations; and that there was no provision for grant of fee
continuity benefit iil case of such transmission.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, admittedly, father of the E
appellant was a member of the stock exchange and not
the firm. Ordinarily, if the firm is not a member ofthe stock
exchange, it would not be entitled to deal with securities
in securities market in the Bombay Stock Exchange. The
Bombay Stock Exchange does not enroll partnership firm F
as members. As such, father of the appellant alone was
the member of the stock exchange, and he alone was thus
entitled to deal in securities in the Bombay Stock Ex-
change. [para 14] [953-D,E & F]
1.2 By clear interpretation of the Regulations, it is G
abundantly clear that no provision of succession to reg-
istration is permissible. Son of late member in order to
operate in the stock exchange has to obtain a fresh reg-
istration from the SEBI, and for the first five years he would
be required to pay the quantum of fee linked to the turn- H
t-

948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

-{-·
A over and thereafter at the flat rate of Rs. 5000/- in order to
keep the registration in force. [para 18] (955-D & E]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4210
of 2006

B From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.5.2006 of
the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. 221 of
2004

WITH

c C.A. Nos. 2951, 3004, 3008, 3009, 3010, 3015, 3016,
3017, 3058, 3082 of 2006
C.A. Sundaram, Shyam Divan, Nisha Bhaksi, Shashi M.
Kapila, Vikas Mehta, Bina Gupta, Varuman Khandelwal, M.K.S.
Menon, Thomas J. Arackaparamban and M.K. Michael for the
D Appellants.

Altaf Ahmad, Bhargava V. Desai, Rahul Gupta, Reema
Sharma, Rajeev Kumar, Jyoti Mendiratta and Ambhoj Kumar
Sinha for the Respondents.

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This batch of appeals in-
volve the similar issue, therefore, all these appeals are dis-
posed-of by this· common judgment. For the sake of conve-
nience, the facts of Civil Appeal No. 4210 of 2006 are recapitu- )(

F lated.
2. This statutory appeal under section 15Z of the Securi-
ties and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Act") is directed against the order dated 121h May,
G 2006 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in
Appeal No.221 of 2004.
•
3. The impugned order is a one line order which makes a
reference to the detailed order passed on 12111 May, 2006 in a
companion matter being Appeal No.211 of 2004 titled as
H
•
~
NIKHIL KANCHANALA LVAKHARIA v. SECURITIES 949
AND BOARD OF INDIAAND ANOTHER [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

Kamlesh Raman/al Shah v. SEBI and Another. A
4. The question which calls for adjudication in this case is
regarding "fee continuity benefit". Under the SEBI (Stock Bro-
kers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (for short "the Regu-
lations") a fee is required to be paid by the stock brokers. B
Broadly, the fee was structured in two distinct phases. In the
first five years of operation of a broker, the quantum of the fee
was linked to the turnover of the stock broker. Greater the turn-
over, higher the fee.
5. The second phase comprised blocks of five years from c
the sixth financial year after the grant of initial registration. Dur-
ing each block period of five years, the stock broker was re-
quired to pay a flat rate of Rs.5000/- in order to keep the regis-
tration in force. The flat fee had no link to the turnover.

- 6. The appellant claims that whenever the event of trans- D
mission occurs within five years, they should be given the fee
continuity benefit and should not be made to pay the turnover
basis fee for the remainder of initial period of five years. The
appellant is claiming that on account of transmission, since the
business and trade continues in the same name or entity and E
the Stock Exchange permits continuation of the same member-
ship under the same number and clearing code, they should
also be given the benefit under the same registration of the
earlier Stock-Broker and thus grant the benefit of fee continuity.
7. According to the appellant, the present case involves a F
situation where at all material times the stock broking firm was
a partnership firm carrying on business in the name and style of
M/s. Kanchanlal & Sons. The appellant along with his son, wife
and daughter-in-law constituted a partnership firm. Late Shri
Kanchanlal K. Vakharia because of his ill health decided to nomi- G
nate the appellant in his place as a member of Stock Exchange,,
Mumbai (respondent no.2). The appellant claimed that he is 'CJ.'
partner of Mis. Kanchanlal & Sons and, therefore, now the Se~
curity Exchange Board of India (for short SEBI) should give the
benefit of fee continuity as for the first five years they have.al- H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 8 S.C.R.

A ready been charged from the partnership on a turnover basis,
therefore, they must now charge on a flat rate of Rs.5000/- per
annum for the registration. The appellant claims on account of
transmission since the business and trade continued in the same
name or entity and the stock exchange permits continuation of
B the same membership under the same number and clearing
code. They should also be given the benefit under the same
registration of the earlier stock broker and the benefit of fee
continuity.
8. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for
C the SEBI submitted that there is no provision in the SEBI Act,
Rules and/or Regulations of the SEBI in this behalf which recog-
nizes the registration of stock-brokers by inheritance and/or trans-
mission for the purpose of granting fee continuity benefit. The
appellant who is son of Late Shri Kanchanlal K. Vakharia on trans-
0 . mission can be registered only as a new stock broker with SEBI . '
in accordance with the Act. Regulations and the SEBI (Stock-
Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules, 1992 (for short "the Rules") and
subject to payment of registration fee for a new stock-broker as
-
per the schedule fixed in the Regulations. He further submitted
E that there is no provision for grant of fee continuity benefit in cases
of such transmission. The only situation under which fee continu-
ity benefit is granted is under para 4 of Schedule Ill under Regu-
lation 10 of the Regulations, which reads thus:
"4. Where a corporate entity has been formed by
F converting the individual or partnership membership card
of the exchange, such corporate entity shall be exempted
from payment of fee for the period for which the erstwhile
individual or partnership member, as the case may be,
has already paid the fees subject to the condition that the
G erstwhile individual or partner shall be the wholetime
Director of the corporate member so converted and such
Director will continue to hold minimum 40% shares of the
paid-up equity capital of the corporate entity for a period
of at least three years from the date of such conversion.

l H

\

t
NIKHILKANCHANALALVAKHARIAv. SECURITIES 951
AND BOARD OF INDIAAND ANOTHER [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

Explanation.-lt is clarified that the conversion of individual A
or partnership membership card of the exchange into
corporate entity shall be deemed to be in continuation of
the old entity and no fee shall be collected again from the
converted corporate entity for the period for which the
erstwhile entity has paid the fee as per the regulations." B
9. Mr. Ahmed further contended that it was an incentive for
corporatisation since a corporate entity is required to maintain
all records under law and as such it facilitates regulating of the
stock brokers. Under no other circumstances fee continuity ben-
efit is available under the statutory regulations and hence the C
appellant cannot be granted benefit offee continuity on account
of transmission.
10. Mr. Ahmed also submitted that every stock-broker who
wants to deal in securities in the securities market is required D
to be a member of a stock exchange and then get himself reg-
istered with SEBI under section 12 of the Act in accordance
with the procedure as provided in the Regulations subject to
the payment of registration fee for a new stock-broker under
rule 4 of the Rules and Regulation 10 of the Regulations on the
rates mentioned in Schedule-Ill. E
Rule 4 of the Rules reads thus:
"4. Conditions for grant of ceniiicate to stock-
broker.- The Board may grant a certificate to a stock-
broker subject to the following conditions namely:- F
(a) he holds the membership of any stock exchange;
(b) he shall abide by the rules, regulations and bye-laws
of the stock exchange or stock exchanges of which
he is a member; G
(c) in case of any change in the status and constitution,
the stock-broker shall obtain prior permission of the
Board to continue to buy, sell or deal in securities in
any stock exchange;
H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A (d) he shall pay the amount of fees for registration in the
manner provided in the regulations; and

(e) he shall take adequate steps for redressal of
grievances of the investors within one month of the
date of the receipt of the complaint and keep the
B Board informed about the number, nature and other
particulars of the complaints received from such
investors."

Regulation 10 of the Regulations reads thus:
c "10. Payment of fees and the consequences of failure
to pay fees.- (1) Every applicant eligible for grant of a
certificate shall pay such fees and in such manner as
specified in Schedule Ill;

Provided that the Board may on sufficient cause being
D
shown permit the stock-broker to pay such fees at any
time before the expiry of six months from the date on
which such fees become due.

(2) Where a stock-broker fails to pay the fees as provided
E in regulation 10, the Board may suspend the registration
certificate, whereupon the stock-broker shall cease to buy,
sell or deal in securities as a stock-broker.

11. Mr. Ahmed contended that in order to become a mem-
ber of the stock exchange, the person is required to be quali-
F tied as per rule 8 of the Securities Contracts (Regulations) Rules,
1957. This right is also not inheritable, since every person on
transmission may not even be qualified to become a member
of a particular stock exchange. It is pertinent to mention here
that membership of a stock exchange is a privilege and not a
G matter of right and thus this cannot be claimed as inheritable.
12. Mr. Ahmed also contended ihat SEBI has no discre-
tion in implementation of the Act, Rules or Regulations and has
to strictly adhere to the provisions as laid down and, therefore,
H has no power to waive the said requirement. It may also be
NIKHIL KANCHANALA LVAKHARIA v. SECURITIES 953
AND BOARD OF INDIAAND ANOTHER [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

relevant to mention that out of the 19 stock brokers who prayed A
for waiver of the fresh registration or new entities upon trans-
mission, only 9 or 10 have come to challenge the same before
this court and balance have accepted the judgment of the
learned Tribunal.

13. Mr. Ahmed further submitted that the SEBI has applied B
the turnover regime for the period 1992-93 to 1996-97 and,
therefore, charged on the flat rate basis. Clause 1(1 )(c) of Sched-
ule Ill of the Regulations reads thus:

"after the expiry of five financial years from the date of c
initial registration as a stock-broker, he shall pay a sum of
rupees five thousand for every block of five financial years
commencing from the sixth financial year after the date of
grant of initial registration to keep his registration in force."

14. Learned senior counsel also submitted that, under sec- D
tion 12 of the Act, no person can deal in securities in the secu-
rities market without being registered with the SEBI. In the
present case, admittedly, Late Shri Kanchanlal K. Vakharia,
father of the appellant, was a member of the stock exchange
and not the firm M/s. Kanchanlal & Sons. Ordinarily, if M/s. E
Kanchanlal & Sons is not a member of the stock exchange, the
firm would not be entitled to deal with securities in securities
market in the Bombay Stock Exchange. The Bombay Stock
Exchange does not enroll partnership firm as members. As
such, Late Shri Kanchanlal K. Vakharia alone was the member F
of the stock exchange and he alone was thus entitled to deal in
securities in the Bombay Stock Exchange. However, under rule
· 179 of the Bombay Stock Exchange Rules, an individual mem-
ber can do business in partnership With certain categorized re-
lations and, therefore, the Bombay Stock Exchange permits G
trading by the individual in.the name of the partnership firm. Rule
179 of the Bo.mbay Stock Exchange reads thus:
"179. No partnership shall be formec;l except-
(i) . between two or more members of the Exchange; or H
954 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R.

A (ii) between a member of the Exchange and his father
or mother or wife or his son or sons or daughter or
.-
daughter-in-law or daughters-in-law or father's brother
or brothers or unmarried sister or sisters or brother's
or brother's son or sons; or
B (iii) between two or more members of the Exct-iange and
their father, mothers or wives or son or sons or
daughter or daughters or daughter-in-law or
daughters-in-law or brother or brothers or father's
brother or brothers or unmarried sister or sisters or
c brother's or brothers' son or sons;

Provided that a son or daughter or son's son or brother or
father's brother or unmarried sister of brother's shall not
be taken into partnership unless he or she be in all respects
eligible for membership of the Exchange."
D
15. It was contended by Mr. Ahmed that Late Shri
Kanchanlal K. Vakharia alone was a member and through his
partnership, the entire partnership firm was allowed to trade on
the Bombay Stock Exchange, the entire turnover of trade on the
E Bombay Stock Exchange is relatable to the individual member
Late Shri Kanchanlal K. Vakharia as otherwise the partnership
firm and non-member partners would not have been able to deal
in securities on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Consequently,
this partnership firm could also not deal with securities unless
F the member of the stock exchange namely the individual mem-
ber Late Shri Kanchanlal K. Vakharia gets registered with SEBI.
It is through that individual member Late Shri K. Vakharia that
the partnership firm and registered partners are able to deal in
securities on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Even otherwise,
G' the entire turnover of the partnership firm on the stock exchange
is on securities and, therefore, relatable to the registered mem-
ber i.e. Late Shri Kanchanlal K. Vakharia under whose mem-
bership of Bombay Stock Exchange and registration of SEBI,
such trading is permitted.
H 16. It was also submitted on behalf of the SEBI that the
NIKHIL KANCHANALA LVAKHARIA v. SECURITIES 955
AND BOARD OF INDIAAND ANOTHER [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
... '" appellant wants only his turnover to be considered as a mem- A
ber of the Exchange and the other partners being non-member
partners want to be outside the purview of the registration of the
SEBI since they cannot be registered but at the same time want
to deal in securities on the exchange under the membership
and registration of Late Shri Kanchanlal K. Vakharia. B
17. According. to the learned counsel for the SEBI, the en-
.. tire dealing in securities by the non-member partners would be
illegal and contrary to section 12 of the Act and liable to all such
consequences in law. In fact, if the stand taken is correct then
the partnership firm is also the non-member partnership and c
cannot deal in securities but are dealing in securities in breach
of law.
18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
• .length and carefully analysed the provisions of the Act, Rules
D
·, C\nd Regulations. By clear interpretation of the Regulations, it is
.. abundantly clear that no provision of succession to registration
is permissible. Nikhil K.Vakharia son of Late Shri Kanchanlal
K. Vakharia in order to operate in the stock exchange has to
obtain a fresh registration from the SEBI and for the first five
years, he would be required to pay the quantum of fee linked to E
the turnover and thereafter at the flat rate of Rs.5000/- in order
to keep the registration in force.
~

19. In view of the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regula-
':1
tions, we have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the F
appeal is devoid of ~my merit and is accordingly dismissed.
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2951, 3004, 3008, 3009, 3010,
3015, 3016, 3017, 3058, 3082 of 2006.
20. In view of our decision in Civil Appeai No.4210 of 2006, G
these appeals also stand disposed of accordingly.
' •
21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct
the parties in all the appeals to bear their own costs.
R.P. Appeals dismissed.
H