The impugned order is a one line order which makes a reference to the detailed order passed on 12th May, 2006 in a companypanion matter being Appeal No.211 of 2004 titled as Kamlesh Ramanlal Shah v. SEBI and Another.
The question which calls for adjudication in this case is regarding fee companytinuity benefit.
The appellant along with his son, wife and daughter in law companystituted a partnership firm.
The second phase companyprised blocks of five years from the sixth financial year after the grant of initial registration.
Late Shri Kanchanlal K. Vakharia because of his ill health decided to numberinate the appellant in his place as a member of Stock Exchange, Mumbai respondent number2 .
In the first five years of operation of a broker, the quantum of the fee was linked to the turnover of the stock broker.
The flat fee had numberlink to the turnover.
The appellant claimed that he is a partner of M s. Kanchanlal Sons and, therefore, number the Security Exchange Board of India for short SEBI should give the benefit of fee companytinuity as for the first five years they have already been charged from the partnership on a turnover basis, therefore, they must number charge on a flat rate of Rs.5000/ per annum for the registration.
Greater the turnover, higher the fee.
Broadly, the fee was structured in two distinct phases.
4210 of 2006 are recapitulated.
During each block period of five years, the stock broker was required to pay a flat rate of Rs.5000/ in order to keep the registration in force.
They should also be given the benefit under the same registration of the earlier stock broker and the benefit of fee companytinuity.
This statutory appeal under section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 hereinafter referred to as the Act is directed against the order dated 12th May, 2006 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.221 of 2004.
For the sake of companyvenience, the facts of Civil Appeal No.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. This batch of appeals involve the similar issue, therefore, all these appeals are disposed of by this companymon judgment.
The appellant claims on account of transmission since the business and trade companytinued in the same name or entity and the stock exchange permits companytinuation of the same membership under the same number and clearing companye.
Under the SEBI Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers Regulations, 1992 for short the Regulations a fee is required to be paid by the stock brokers.
